[c-nsp] DS1 provisioning using IP Unnumbered vs /30s

Gert Doering gert at greenie.muc.de
Sat Feb 7 03:32:15 EST 2009


On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 09:10:12AM +0100, sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
> > Breaking PMTUd is OK?  Thanks very much.
> We block RFC1918 source addresses at our borders. This is not
> negotiable. If it breaks PMTUd because some operator used 1918
> addresses on links, too bad...

In case my opinion on this was not obvious (I received some private e-mail
concerning doubts): I'm very much opposed to breaking PMTUd or traceroutes
by using RFC1918 addresses on links.

(If you can get your routers to source ICMPs from global addresses, then
I have no issue with the RFC1918 part on the transfer networks - but ICMP 
is important, and breaking it is bad).

USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany                             gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025                        gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 304 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20090207/d14a17bb/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list