Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:19:51 -0600 (CST) From: Josh Franta <josh@frantastic.com> To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: two routers back to back: Do they need real ip-adresses? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9811131653330.6741-100000@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9811132029500.17115-100000@blondie.ottawa.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This RFC describes the "best" practices for using reserved addresses. A less strict way to interprut rfc1918 might be to say that any host (interface) that uses rfc1918 address space shouldn't *expect* connectivity to the public Internet (short of some sort of gateway). NANOG had a related discussion several weeks ago. Basically what it came down to was that using rfc1918 address space on p2p links *may* break PMTU discovery. It would only break PMTU discovery when one of the involved parties (including trasit ASs) filters the RFC1918 address space. This type of filtering happens to be recommened in rfc1918 :). So it's probably not recommened since it could potentially cause you problems. For more information, check out: http://users.worldgate.com/~marcs/mtu/ Or, search the NANOG archives (www.nanog.org) for this thread. I believe the title was something like: RFC1918: Does it break Path MTU discovery? josh franta mailto:josh@frantastic.com http://josh.frantastic.com On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, User MAT wrote: > > If you read the quote below, the third paragraph states that private IP's > cannot have direct contact to the Internet. So IHO, the answer is no, you > have to use a Globally un-Ambigous address. > > Mathew > > Quote from RFC 1918: (pg4..pg5, please excuse formating errors) > [snipped] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" 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.4.05.9811131653330.6741-100000>