Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 10:17:09 -0400 (EDT) From: spork <spork@super-g.com> To: Philippe Regnauld <regnauld@I23.EU.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, briann@wrsec.wrsec.fr Subject: Re: Unnumbered lines. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980703101321.23876A-100000@super-g.inch.com> In-Reply-To: <19980703015206.18977@tetard.glou.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 3 Jul 1998, Philippe Regnauld wrote: > 3) use RFC1918, or anything you feel like, on the link > (like 10.0.0.1, 10.0.0.2) > > Problem with 3) it is makes for nasty-looking, or even strange > traceroutes. The advantage for internal use is the possibility > to use the DNS to label links, like: The problem with this is that you run into problems with Path MTU discovery. Since these addresses aren't routable, when that router wants to send an ICMP message saying that it can't fragment a packet with the DF bit set, it can't. Well, it can, but it won't get to the host that's trying to determine the max MTU along the path. This also gets rid of one of the best advantages of numbered links, being able to ping the individual interfaces to see what's going on when you've got problems... Charles > > > > -- > -[ Philippe Regnauld / regnauld@eu.org / +55.4N +11.3E @ Sol3 / +45 33241690 ]- > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980703101321.23876A-100000>