RE: Qwest/forthelife.net rfc1918 goodness

["Chance Whaley" <chance () dreamscope com>]

Its not Q with the 1918 addressing.

notice: 8 chi-edge-17.inet.qwest.net (205.171.20.154) 64 msec 64 msec 68
msec

edge = elvis has left the building

.chance

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
Alex Pilosov
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 8:16 PM
To: Mark Mentovai
Cc: Jade E. Deane; nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: Qwest/forthelife.net rfc1918 goodness



On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Mark Mentovai wrote:
> I used to think that this was wrong also, and I would never build a
> network like that, but aside from making for ugly traceroutes, there's
> really nothing wrong with it.  RFC 1918 doesn't address this issue

It, together with a martian ingress-filters break PMTU-D _IF_ any of the
links between these routers has MTU less than 1500. This topic pops up on
nanog every 4-6 months, but I doubt that it'll make home.net or qwest
change their addressing schemes.

--
Alex Pilosov            | http://www.acecape.com/dsl
CTO - Acecape, Inc.     | AceDSL:The best ADSL in Bell Atlantic area
325 W 38 St. Suite 1005 | (Stealth Marketing Works! :)
New York, NY 10018      |