Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 23:31:12 -0500 (EST) From: User MAT <mat@blondie.ottawa.cc> To: Jesper Skriver <jesper@skriver.dk> Cc: Leif Neland <root@swimsuit.internet.dk>, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: two routers back to back: Do they need real ip-adresses? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9811132320380.17306-100000@blondie.ottawa.cc> In-Reply-To: <19981113235216.A28029@skriver.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> --quote-- > Private hosts can communicate with all other hosts inside the enterprise, > both public and private. [HERE-> However, they cannot have > IP connectivity to any host outside of the enterprise. [<- HERE] > --quote-- > > What is ment here is that the host which is assigned RFC1918 addresses > cannot communicate with "the Internet", there is nothing wrong with > having RFC1918 addresses on interfaces that only has "internal" > connectivity. I agree that it's ok to have private IP's on private interfaces and say, natd the public interface, the RFC offers this as a option. But if it's just a router and you traceroute through it, the IP address that comes up is ambigous. > > Here in Denmark the national school backbone is running RFC1918 > addresses on it's routers, no problem, as long as all hosts that need > Internet connectivity uses real addresses ... > > I also know that several larger US NSP's use RFC1918 in their backbones I know and it drives me nuts. They don't block the private router info and packets, this causes confusion on some of my machines. Furthermore, there's no co-ordianation of use of private IPs so that two ISPs could use the same private IP their routers and have a traceroute report an same IP for a hop twice, doesn't that seem wrong? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9811132320380.17306-100000>