Severe Response Degradation

Jeff Aitken jaitken at
Wed Apr 28 15:04:46 UTC 1999

Andrew Brown writes:
> Daniel Senie writes:
> >Considering the large chunk of 24/8 they have, I can't imagine why they
> >had to use RFC 1918 addresses throughout their infrastructure. When I
> >raised issues about this (just after getting a T1 to their network),
> >they had no answers other than that since they chose an MTU of 1500
> >bytes for all their links, they didn't think path MTU discovery would be
> >an issue.
> well then, they're obviously clueless.

Hasn't this come up here before?  I'm too lazy to go check the
archive, but I seem to remember a discussion of this topic.  IIRC, 
the reason/excuse given (lame or not) was that they use equipment
that does not deal well/at all with CIDR or VLSM or somesuch.  Or
am I thinking of someone else?

Not that I recall it being a widely accepted reason here. :-)


ObRandy: Cynical response regarding people simply complaining
         about that which they do not fully understand omitted.

More information about the NANOG mailing list