nanog mailing list archives
Re: Bogon list
From: "Miquel van Smoorenburg" <miquels () cistron nl>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 08:34:58 +0000 (UTC)
In article <cistron.20020605013323.A7C1EC7936 () cesium clock org>, Sean M. Doran <smd () clock org> wrote:
| Why treat exchange subnets differently to any other bit of backbone | infrastructure? Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. I would love them all to use RFC 1918 addresses, because it is VERY VERY VERY rare that anything outside the scope in which the 1918 local use addresses are unique actually has to communicate with backbone infrastructure of any type.
And again Path MTU discovery gets broken.
What communication can your workstation have with an XYZNET router?
Receive ICMP size exceeded packets ? I haven't seen a 'icmp source lo0' interface command yet. Hopefully it will be added for ipv6 so exchanges can use link-local addressing (ipv6 has no fragmentation, PMTUd is mandatory). Mike.
Current thread:
- Re: Bogon list, (continued)
- Re: Bogon list Randy Bush (Jun 05)
- OT: Re: Bogon list Rafi Sadowsky (Jun 05)
- Re: OT: Re: Bogon list Scott Francis (Jun 05)
- Re: OT: Re: Bogon list Richard A Steenbergen (Jun 05)
- Common Sense W.D.McKinney (Jun 05)
- Re: OT: Re: Bogon list Rafi Sadowsky (Jun 05)
- Re: OT: Re: Bogon list Scott Francis (Jun 06)
- Re: OT: Re: Bogon list Valdis . Kletnieks (Jun 05)
- Re: OT: Re: Bogon list Greg A. Woods (Jun 06)
- net.inet.icmp.sourceforce (Re: Bogon list) E.B. Dreger (Jun 05)
- Re: Bogon list bmanning (Jun 05)
- Re: Bogon list Richard A Steenbergen (Jun 05)