[9795] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC 1918 addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (prue@isi.edu)
Mon Jun 2 16:55:23 1997
From: prue@isi.edu
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:01:19 -0700
To: nanog@merit.edu
Cc: Prue@isi.edu
Paul,
>> I agree that ever having a source or destination IP that's RFC1918 outside
>> the domain is a very bad thing.
>I don't see anyone here disagreeing with that, but apparently a number of
>ISP's did not consider the ICMP case when they gave numbers to their T1's,
>and so it's a question of definition rather than of intent. Transit nets
>are public, not private, and so they have to have public, not private,
>addresses.
I want to respectfully disagree. I do run internal routing protocols
that can't handle VLSM or CIDRization permitting cutting up a class C
into 64 disconnected pieces. , igrp in particular. Because of this I
would burn too many network numbers by having to use public network
numbers for all my T1's. I never permit a case where both sides of a
router have RFC1918 address space so there is no confusion in a
traceroute at to where to address questions about routing issues.
Purity of addresses is valuable but I am willing to compromise on this
in this instance.
Walt
