nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC 1918
From: Michael Shields <shields () msrl com>
Date: 14 Jul 2000 22:32:56 +0000
In article <20000714194722.AD3EA35DC2 () smb research att com>, "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () research att com> wrote:
No -- 1918 addresses would only break PMTU if folks did ingress or egress filtering for 1918 addresses.
It is easy to argue that using interface 1918 addresses and PMTUD are incompatible with connecting to the Internet, for PMTUD requires sending an ICMP message with the source address of the interface, and using 1918 space on the Internet is not allowed. RFC 1918 section 3: "In order to use private address space, an enterprise needs to determine which hosts do not need to have network layer connectivity outside the enterprise in the foreseeable future and thus could be classified as private. Such hosts will use the private address space defined above. [...] However, they cannot have IP connectivity to any host outside of the enterprise." "Indirect references to such addresses should be contained within the enterprise. Prominent examples of such references are DNS Resource Records and other information referring to internal private addresses. In particular, Internet service providers should take measures to prevent such leakage." -- Shields.
Current thread:
- Re: RFC 1918, (continued)
- 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 Bennett Todd (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Gary E. Miller (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Michael Shields (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Greg A. Woods (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Shawn McMahon (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Greg A. Woods (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Shawn McMahon (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bennett Todd (Jul 16)
- Re: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 16)
- Re: Path-MTU-discovery Greg A. Woods (Jul 16)
- Re: Path-MTU-discovery Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 16)