nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC 1918
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:33:18 -0400
[SNIP]We had a similar discussion a long while ago (2 years?) on whether having RFC1918 addressed router interface could break Path MTU discovery.
The general upshot is that the RFC specifically says that no packets with a reserved address in the header (source or destination) should leave the network in question. Also, the RFC says it is not at all unreasonable (but not required) for a network to filter packets with RFC1918 addresses in the source. (To prevent attacks and things like that.)
So it is nearly impossible to stay 100% compliant and address router interfaces with RFC1918 addresses. (Unless you NAT or something.)
All IIRC - I did not dig up the thread to double-check. TTFN, patrickP.S. Please do not yell at me about this, I am just summarizing a past thread I thought might be relevant. I got yelled at enough during the last thread where I argued that it was not such a bad thing 'cause it conserved space and stuff. Really, I only need 14 people to point out the sections of the RFC I missed before I get the point. :p
Current thread:
- RFC 1918 Shawn McMahon (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 14)
- Message not available
- Re: RFC 1918 Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bennett Todd (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Gary E. Miller (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bennett Todd (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: RFC 1918 Shawn McMahon (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Danny McPherson (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Steven M. Bellovin (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bennett Todd (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Gary E. Miller (Jul 14)