On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, Phil Howard wrote:
Greg A. Woods wrote:
my upstream provider to use RFC1918 on inter-router links, but they do anyway. I'd like them to filter those addresses too, but they won't.
I do agree they should be filtered out.
At what point should we draw the line and say who can, and who cannot, use RFC1918 addresses on links? My first thought would be any link over which traffic from more than one AS transits, or between AS's, should always be fully routable. Any better ideas?
Somewhere along the lines of this thread, the point has been lost (IMHO). If a provider uses 1918 addresses on internal links, who cares? And when you say 'filter' them, do you mean filter them in routing announcements, or filter any traffic to/from that ips? If the former, than thats good, you should do that; it should be part of your martian filters. If the latter, thats fine too, but traceroutes will '*' on those hops. But, once again, who cares? Conservation of IP space is good at worst.
won't be using precious unique IPs and feel the pressure to use RFC1918 numbers instead). I'm certainly no expert at this, but from the outside I've seen it done quite successfully. It sure cuts down on the hop count visible from traceroute too!
Using 1918 space will have no bearing on hop count or visibility of the hop. Thats rediculous. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, alex@nac.net, KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP; we have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --