[nsp] /30 over WAN links

[Hudson Delbert J Contr 61 CS/SCBN]

okay,

sorry to all. let me clarify so as not to offend anyone.
i dont want to or encourage use of rfc1918 space for anything other 
internal networking to conserve address space. they serve no more
signifigance than that for me. 

del's rule...rfc1918 are the inside only - no exposure allowed...kiss
principle, baby...
anything else is way too complicated and doesnt work as well as basic stuff.

i dont have to worry about control messages are anything else from the
addy's if i dont use them in the 
internet arena..

also i saw a reference to a carrier usage showing up in a traceroute...

there is a source i have a great deal of respect for...NOT....

~v/r
Del Hudson
61CS/SCBN - LAAFB NCC
Network Architecture & Engineering Group
delbert.hudson at losangeles.af.mil



-----Original Message-----
From: Church, Chuck [mailto:cchurch at wamnetgov.com]
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 12:47 PM
To: Niels Bakker
Cc: NSP - Cisco (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [nsp] /30 over WAN links


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/
> 

_______________________________________________
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/