nanog mailing list archives
Re: Severe Response Degradation
From: Jeff Aitken <jaitken () aitken com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 11:04:46 -0400 (EDT)
Andrew Brown writes:
Daniel Senie writes:Considering the large chunk of 24/8 they have, I can't imagine why they had to use RFC 1918 addresses throughout their infrastructure. When I raised issues about this (just after getting a T1 to their network), they had no answers other than that since they chose an MTU of 1500 bytes for all their links, they didn't think path MTU discovery would be an issue.well then, they're obviously clueless.
Hasn't this come up here before? I'm too lazy to go check the archive, but I seem to remember a discussion of this topic. IIRC, the reason/excuse given (lame or not) was that they use equipment that does not deal well/at all with CIDR or VLSM or somesuch. Or am I thinking of someone else? Not that I recall it being a widely accepted reason here. :-) --Jeff ObRandy: Cynical response regarding people simply complaining about that which they do not fully understand omitted.
Current thread:
- Severe Response Degradation Derrick Bennett (Apr 27)
- Re: Severe Response Degradation Stephen Stuart (Apr 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Severe Response Degradation Derrick Bennett (Apr 27)
- RE: Severe Response Degradation Derek Balling (Apr 28)
- Re: Severe Response Degradation Daniel Senie (Apr 28)
- Re: Severe Response Degradation Andrew Brown (Apr 28)
- Re: Severe Response Degradation Jeff Aitken (Apr 28)
- Re: Severe Response Degradation Daniel Senie (Apr 28)
- Re: Severe Response Degradation Andrew Brown (Apr 28)
- Torrent Routers Darin Divinia (Apr 28)
- RE: Severe Response Degradation Derek Balling (Apr 28)
- Re: Severe Response Degradation Derek Balling (Apr 28)
- RE: Severe Response Degradation Roeland M.J. Meyer (Apr 28)