From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Nov 13 15:30:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA20009 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:30:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from blondie.ottawa.cc (blondie.ottawa.cc [209.112.49.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA20004 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:30:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mat@blondie.ottawa.cc) Received: from localhost (mat@localhost) by blondie.ottawa.cc (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA17317; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:31:12 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mat@blondie.ottawa.cc) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:31:12 -0500 (EST) From: User MAT To: Jesper Skriver cc: Leif Neland , freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: two routers back to back: Do they need real ip-adresses? In-Reply-To: <19981113235216.A28029@skriver.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > --quote-- > Private hosts can communicate with all other hosts inside the enterprise, > both public and private. [HERE-> However, they cannot have > IP connectivity to any host outside of the enterprise. [<- HERE] > --quote-- > > What is ment here is that the host which is assigned RFC1918 addresses > cannot communicate with "the Internet", there is nothing wrong with > having RFC1918 addresses on interfaces that only has "internal" > connectivity. I agree that it's ok to have private IP's on private interfaces and say, natd the public interface, the RFC offers this as a option. But if it's just a router and you traceroute through it, the IP address that comes up is ambigous. > > Here in Denmark the national school backbone is running RFC1918 > addresses on it's routers, no problem, as long as all hosts that need > Internet connectivity uses real addresses ... > > I also know that several larger US NSP's use RFC1918 in their backbones I know and it drives me nuts. They don't block the private router info and packets, this causes confusion on some of my machines. Furthermore, there's no co-ordianation of use of private IPs so that two ISPs could use the same private IP their routers and have a traceroute report an same IP for a hop twice, doesn't that seem wrong? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message