end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...

Mon Sep 10 20:49:28 UTC 2001

miquels at cistron-office.nl (Miquel van Smoorenburg) writes:

> In article <F5F3FBBFC94DD4118E4500D0B74A095F013E70E1 at EMAIL2>,
> Hire, Ejay <Ejay.Hire at Broadslate.net> wrote:
> >Using RFC 1918 space inside a network on transit segments that will be
> >passing data but not generating it makes sense.
> 
> Only if the MTUs on all interfaces of the routers are the same.
> Otherwise you might generate a ICMP size exceeded message that
> will never reach the sender, breaking Path MTU Discovery.

Not to get involved in the RFC1918 for routers topic again, but the
NAT discussions here got me wondering if much of this could be solved
by having an edge router translate all of the internal router-network
addresses to some constant, real address.  Setting aside opinions
about the brokenness of NAT, can anybody think of anything this would
break?

-----ScottG.