Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 17:05:09 -0500 (EST) From: Snob Art Genre <benedict@echonyc.com> To: sthaug@nethelp.no Cc: abial@korin.warman.org.pl, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ifconfig reports bogus netmask Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.971217170415.23340A-100000@echonyc.com> In-Reply-To: <24945.882388949@verdi.nethelp.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is only a problem if you want everyone to see your network topology. But why would someone need to traceroute you from another AS? On Wed, 17 Dec 1997 sthaug@nethelp.no wrote: > > And even if you don't want to run unnumbered interface, you waste only 4 > > addresses (x.x.x.x/255.255.255.252), and even these can be private (e.g. > > 10.x.x.x)... So I don't see that much waste here. > > Wasting 4 addresses (instead of 2) for point to point links is not a big > deal, and we do it all the time. > > Using RFC 1918 addresses for point to point links on the Internet is not > a good idea, because: > > - You'll get ICMP messages with RFC 1918 addresses as source (think of > traceroute). > > - Many organizations filter RFC 1918 source addresses at their border > routers. Thus the corresponding ICMPs will never arrive. > > Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no > Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.3.96.971217170415.23340A-100000>