Bogon list

Fri Jun 7 15:38:23 UTC 2002

Indeed, and that is one of the reasons why I agree IXPs and P2P should not
use RFC1918

My point was merely that using RFC1918 on links does not break P-MTU,
whether it should be used or not was another question...

Steve

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Daniel Senie wrote:

> 
> At 05:26 AM 6/7/02, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> 
> 
> >On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > In the referenced message, Sean M. Doran said:
> > > > Basically, arguing that the routing system should carry around
> > > > even more information is backwards.  It should carry less.
> > > > If IXes need numbers at all (why???) then use RFC 1918 addresses
> > > > and choose one of the approaches above to deal with questions
> > > > about why 1918 addresses result in "messy traceroutes."
> > > >
> > > > Fewer routes, less address consumption, tastes great, less filling.
> > > >
> > > >     Sean.
> > >
> > > Do you:
> > > 1) Not believe in PMTU-D
> >
> >RFC1918 does not break path-mtu, filtering it does tho..
> 
> Though many people either miss the point or don't care, RFC 1918 is also 
> BCP 5. Last I checked, BCP stood for "Best Current Practice." So you've got 
> a BCP document saying the addresses listed in RFC 1918 should not be 
> present on the public network. So yes, filtering is required by RFC 1918, 
> and so use of the private IP address blocks does break Path MTU discovery. 
> Some folks find the private address space specified in RFC 1918 convenient, 
> but ignore the stipulations on use contained in the same document.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Daniel Senie                                        dts at senie.com
> Amaranth Networks Inc.                    http://www.amaranth.com
> 
> 