On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote:
In the referenced message, Sean M. Doran said:
Basically, arguing that the routing system should carry around even more information is backwards. It should carry less. If IXes need numbers at all (why???) then use RFC 1918 addresses and choose one of the approaches above to deal with questions about why 1918 addresses result in "messy traceroutes."
Fewer routes, less address consumption, tastes great, less filling.
Sean.
Do you: 1) Not believe in PMTU-D
RFC1918 does not break path-mtu, filtering it does tho..
2) Not believe in filtering RFC1918 sourced traffic at enterprise boundaries (of which an exchange would be a boundary)
What for? You'll find many more much more mailicious packets coming from legit routable address space.
3) Not believe packet-passing devices have legitimate needs in contacting hosts, even if hosts don't have legitimate needs for contacting them? (a superset of 1, above) 4) All or some of the above?
I would love if RFC1918 were adhered to such that L3 packet-passing devices either weren't numbered out of those blocks, or allowed what juniper allows with the ability to select the ip address with which packets sourced by the L3 packet-passing device sent traffic (other than primary ip on destination interface). The latter would permit intra-enterprise use of RFC1918 addresses, while still conforming with RFC1918. Failing that, use of RFC1918 addresses in places where inter-provider packets get RFC1918 sources, is a violation of RFC1918.
For p2p you can use unnumbered.. it wont work on exchanges but i agree they shouldnt be rfc1918. Steve
In any event, exchanges are inter-enterprise, and shouldn't be RFC1918.