[9740] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 10.0.0
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Hawkinson)
Sat May 31 10:07:39 1997
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@bbnplanet.com>
To: doshea@mail.wiltel.net (Dave O'Shea)
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 09:53:16 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199705310440.XAA19599@wiltel.net> from "Dave O'Shea" at May 30, 97 11:43:08 pm
> I've noted several providers, including a couple of better-known ones,
> using RFC1597 addresses internally. While not a Really Optimal Solution, it
> does work, and if you find yourself with only a couple of class C's to work
> with.. I'd probably rather preserve them for my customers, and go with
> whatever I had to internally, as long as packets still got from A to B.
>
> The only services that should be affected by the use of such "bogus"
> addresses will be traceroute and any routing information passed by the
> device.
Unfortunately that's not quite true.
There are a variety of services which rely on messages received from
intermediate hops that would break if the the sending host happened
to filter out RFC1918 addresses and a part of the network
were using them.
Probably the best example is Path MTU Discovery.
--jhawk
