nanog mailing list archives
Re: BCP38 exceptions for RFC1918 space
From: Marco Hogewoning <marcoh () marcoh net>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 07:49:15 +0200
On 15 aug 2010, at 20:05, Randy Bush wrote:
What's the current consensus on exempting private network space from source address validation? Is it recommended? Discouraged? (One argument in favor of exceptions is that it makes PMTUD work if transfer networks use private address space.)and this is a good thing? rfc1918 packets are not supposed to reach the public internet. once you start accommodating their doing so, the downward slope gets pretty steep and does not end in a nice place.
I cannot agree more with this. If you want PMTU use non-private space, there is enough really :) And saving a /24 by renumbering your core into RFC 1918 won't save you from the coming run out. MarcoH
Current thread:
- Re: BCP38 exceptions for RFC1918 space, (continued)
- Re: BCP38 exceptions for RFC1918 space Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 16)
- Re: BCP38 exceptions for RFC1918 space Joe Greco (Aug 16)
- Re: BCP38 exceptions for RFC1918 space Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 16)
- RE: BCP38 exceptions for RFC1918 space Leigh Porter (Aug 23)
- Re: BCP38 exceptions for RFC1918 space Ali (Aug 23)
- Re: BCP38 exceptions for RFC1918 space Joel Jaeggli (Aug 23)
- RE: BCP38 exceptions for RFC1918 space Leigh Porter (Aug 23)
- Re: BCP38 exceptions for RFC1918 space Florian Weimer (Aug 15)
- Re: BCP38 exceptions for RFC1918 space Marco Hogewoning (Aug 15)
- Re: BCP38 exceptions for RFC1918 space William Herrin (Aug 15)