Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 18:37:57 -0400 From: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG> To: michael butler <imb@scgt.oz.au> Cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch), freebsd-current@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ctm Message-ID: <17101.865118277@orion.webspan.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 01 Jun 1997 06:55:55 %2B1000." <3.0.1.32.19970601065555.006cc364@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
michael butler wrote in message ID <3.0.1.32.19970601065555.006cc364@localhost>: > It is, however, quite valid and useful to address intermediary > routers with numbers chosen from these private networks .. so long > as their administrator can still reach them :-) It has the > (significant) advantage of guaranteeing that no-one else can play > with your gear. With address space being harder and harder to get, > using private (sub)nets in this way can save you *lots* of numbers > for hosts that really need global access, As I have said in other e-mail, it can also lead to problems. Lets say you put your terminal server into net10. You then have a PPP customer negotiate a connection with a MTU << 1500. They then go to a WWW page on a FreeBSD box with a concencious (sp?) admin that blocks RFC1918 addresses on inbound links. Path MTU discovery will fail, as will the users attempt to view the WWW page. So just be careful what you put in reserved networks. Devices which are liable to have to frag packets (e.g. terminal servers) should probably be kept in BGP routed space. Gary -- Gary Palmer FreeBSD Core Team Member FreeBSD: Turning PC's into workstations. See http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/ for info
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17101.865118277>