In article <cistron.20020605013323.A7C1EC7936@cesium.clock.org>, Sean M. Doran <smd@clock.org> wrote:
| Why treat exchange subnets differently to any other bit of backbone | infrastructure?
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. I would love them all to use RFC 1918 addresses, because it is VERY VERY VERY rare that anything outside the scope in which the 1918 local use addresses are unique actually has to communicate with backbone infrastructure of any type.
And again Path MTU discovery gets broken.
What communication can your workstation have with an XYZNET router?
Receive ICMP size exceeded packets ? I haven't seen a 'icmp source lo0' interface command yet. Hopefully it will be added for ipv6 so exchanges can use link-local addressing (ipv6 has no fragmentation, PMTUd is mandatory). Mike.
I haven't seen a 'icmp source lo0' interface command yet. Hopefully it will be added for ipv6 so exchanges can use link-local addressing (ipv6 has no fragmentation, PMTUd is mandatory).
Mike.
Now expired... draft-kato-bgp-ipv6-link-local-01.txt Proof of concept was tested w/ zebra & some development cisco train code. --bill
On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 08:34:58AM +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
I haven't seen a 'icmp source lo0' interface command yet. Hopefully it will be added for ipv6 so exchanges can use link-local addressing (ipv6 has no fragmentation, PMTUd is mandatory).
I'm not terribly sure why you would want to make traceroutes lose all information about the circuits you're traveling through. It would make diagnostics an everloving nightmare, IMHO. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
participants (3)
-
bmanning＠karoshi.com -
Miquel van Smoorenburg -
Richard A Steenbergen