From owner-freebsd-isp Fri Nov 13 15:19:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA18520 for freebsd-isp-outgoing; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:19:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [206.156.231.253]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA18512 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 15:19:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from josh@frantastic.com) Received: from localhost (josh@localhost) by elvis.mu.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA07791 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:19:51 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from josh@frantastic.com) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:19:51 -0600 (CST) From: Josh Franta X-Sender: josh@elvis.mu.org To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: two routers back to back: Do they need real ip-adresses? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org This RFC describes the "best" practices for using reserved addresses. A less strict way to interprut rfc1918 might be to say that any host (interface) that uses rfc1918 address space shouldn't *expect* connectivity to the public Internet (short of some sort of gateway). NANOG had a related discussion several weeks ago. Basically what it came down to was that using rfc1918 address space on p2p links *may* break PMTU discovery. It would only break PMTU discovery when one of the involved parties (including trasit ASs) filters the RFC1918 address space. This type of filtering happens to be recommened in rfc1918 :). So it's probably not recommened since it could potentially cause you problems. For more information, check out: http://users.worldgate.com/~marcs/mtu/ Or, search the NANOG archives (www.nanog.org) for this thread. I believe the title was something like: RFC1918: Does it break Path MTU discovery? josh franta mailto:josh@frantastic.com http://josh.frantastic.com On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, User MAT wrote: > > If you read the quote below, the third paragraph states that private IP's > cannot have direct contact to the Internet. So IHO, the answer is no, you > have to use a Globally un-Ambigous address. > > Mathew > > Quote from RFC 1918: (pg4..pg5, please excuse formating errors) > [snipped] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message