Re: rfc1918 ignorant (fwd)

["Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Haesu wrote:

> Well, if uBR showing RFC1918 address out on the traceroute is an issue, why not
> just reverse the way its configured?
>
> Put RFC1918 as secondary, and put the routable addr as primary. Either way, it
> should work w/o issues, right?

Hmm this could affect routing protocols which use the primary address.. 

> I know quite a few people who purposely put a non-routable IP (whether it be
> 1918 or RIR-registered block) as primary on their interface, and use routable
> IP as secondary. Their reason for doing this is to somewhat "hide" their
> router's real interface IP from showing up in traceroute.. Well, it wouldn't 
> completely 'hide' it, but to a certain level of degree, it probably does...

Right but this one benefit doesnt make right the wrongs!

I guess one thing you could do (if you really wanted to implement hacks) is to 
use the rfc1918 space on your routers and then nat them to a global ip at your 
borders.. achieves all your goals anyhow (not that i'd recommend it ;)