[nsp] /30 over WAN links

[Church, Chuck]

I think you misinterpreted what I meant.  The breaking of traceroute itself is what I was implying wasn't a big issue.  I'm NOT saying that it's a good idea, nor that traceroute is the only thing it did affect.  In fact, any control messages (ICMP) coming back from a 1918-addressed transit router may be dropped.  That includes all the various unreachables, etc.  Sorry I wasn't clear...

Chuck Church
CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE
Wam!Net Government Services
13665 Dulles Technology Dr. Ste 250
Herndon, VA 20171
Office: 703-480-2569
Cell: 703-819-3495
cchurch at wamnetgov.com
PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=cchurch%40wamnetgov.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niels Bakker [mailto:niels=cisco-nsp at bakker.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 3:01 PM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [nsp] /30 over WAN links
> 
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Roman Volf [mailto:volfman at keystreams.com]
> >> 
> >> Does anyone out there use private RFC1918 address for PTP 
> links? Does 
> >> this break anything?
> 
> * cchurch at wamnetgov.com (Church, Chuck) [Fri 06 Feb 2004, 20:54 CET]:
> > If you're filtering bogons, it'll affect traceroutes.  Not 
> a real big issue, though.
> 
> Actually, it breaks something quite important: Path MTU Discovery,
> if you have discrepancies in MTU sizes in your network, like PPPoE,
> and the other party filters bogons (as they should).
> 
> In general, it's a bad idea, that goes much beyond traceroutes.
> Please don't follow Mr CCIE's advice.  RFC1918 space is for networks
> not connected to the Internet.
> 
> This subject is a recurring thread on the NANOG mailing list...
> 
> 
> 	-- Niels.
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>