Really? So you wouldn't recommend using RFC 1918 addressing in a transient
network, say, for a customer (end user) production network, as a means of
securing the routers/switches that transport the data? The servers used
direct server return (http://www.foundrynet.com/genFaqDSR.html), and didn't
incur the performance penalty usually associated with NAT...
I've built several networks using this type addressing scheme, in
conjunction with the use of OSPF and haven't had any problems... I realize
that this is not the same class of network (ISP), but it was a design used
for several e-commerce sites...
I would just like to know other peoples' opinion on this practice,
especially yours, Howard... :)
Thanks
Brant I. Stevens
Internetwork Solutions Engineer
Thrupoint, Inc.
545 Fifth Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY. 10017
646-562-6540
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Howard C. Berkowitz
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 6:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Private Internet Addressing
This remains a continuing thread on NANOG.
My personal view is that the world has certain ISPs, such as cais.net
DSL and apparently US West in your example, that exist for the same
reason as do warthogs: to make roses even more beautiful.
Several major ISPs have this pernicious practice, which confuses
traceroute (in several ways), reverse DNS, and MTU path discovery.
They are ISPs with significant allocations of address space and
should be able to get more.
I personally believe that anyone that uses private address space in a
path where public traffic will EVER route through one of the
addresses, is, at best, being irresponsible. Sort of like looking
for the gas leak with a lighted match.
>I did a traceroute to one of US West's customers... got some
>interesting results:
>
>13 206 ms 179 ms 123 ms gig0-0-0.phnx-sust1.phnx.uswest.net
>[206.80.192.253]
>14 1016 ms 151 ms 975 ms 207.224.191.2
>15 233 ms 124 ms 123 ms 192.168.8.1
>16 151 ms 179 ms 123 ms 192.168.100.147
>17 247 ms 192 ms 151 ms vdsl-130-13-102-120.phnx.uswest.net
>[130.13.102.120]
>
>RFC 1918 - "Address Allocation for Private Internets" indicates
>192.168.0.0 through 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix) is reserved
>for private internets. Hops 15 and 16 in my traceroute show that
>addresses within this range are being used publically.
>
>Did I miss something? Have the "for private use only" IP addresses
>now been given the green light to be used within the internet?
>
> -- Leigh Anne
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
