10 Sep
2026
10 Sep
'26
6:47 a.m.
On Thu, 10 Sept 2026 at 07:48, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
If you’re going to ugly up the trace route that way, probably better to use Link Local (169.254.x.x) addresses than RFC-1918.
That way, the router (should) report a loopback address instead of the interface address in the trace route. Better to have a routable Loopback reported than an RFC-1918 address in most cases.
Can you tell me some example platform(s) that work like this? Any platform I've come across, if you want to send ICMP from a loop, you need to define it, and will then not care what IP you have on the interface. But I do agree that RFC1918 as a link-net on the Internet makes very little sense. -- ++ytti