Re: RFC 1918

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

[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,
patrick

P.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