Symon Thurlow wrote: > > Well, I would view an ISP who uses 1918 addresses in their > public network a little warily. Traceroute etc are pretty > fundamental problem solving tools IMHO
I'm not certain if it's still true or not, but if you mean on links to customer sites, then in the past several very large ISPs did this. When I do a traceroute, I never take the lack of a response as a problem, I only take it for what it is, a lack of a response for that hop in the path. Although it may be indicative of an issue, it certainly isn't necessarily one. Good Luck! fgm > > -----Original Message----- > From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Mon 14/10/2002 2:26 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: > Subject: Re: can I use a /31 subnet to the link between 2 > routers eth [7:55522] > > > > ""bergenpeak"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > One drawback with 1918 addresses on intermediate physical > interfaces is > > that > > this too makes troubleshooting more difficult. > > Entities outside of > > your domain may troublsehoot problems in or through your > network using > > traceroute. > > Like you said, troubleshooting within your own domain is > fine. It only > makes troubleshooting more difficult for people who are > outside your domain. > But unless they happen to be paying customers, do you really > care? And even > if they do care, do you think it's a large enough of an issue > that a > customer would switch to another provider because of it? > Maybe, but > probably not. The fact of the matter is that people who are > outside your > domain are not supposed to be troubleshooting stuff through > your network, > and you are certainly bear little if any responsibility in > making sure that > it is possible to do so. > > >Traceroute timeouts will originate from the physical > > interface > > the TTL expired on. If this physical interface is numbered > using 1918, > > then it's possible these return traceroute packets will get > filtered > > somewhere > > on the return path. > > Again, not to be overly combative, but so what? Like I said, > you as a > provider don't really bear much responsibility for making sure > that others > outside your domain can troubleshoot through your network. > You certainly > aren't responsible for making sure that everybody else in the > whole world > can do a successful traceroute through your network. > > > > > > > > > > > nrf wrote: > > > > > > Depending on your network, that may be a perfectly > acceptable trade-off. > > > > > > Or you can continue to use RFC1918 addresses on your WAN > links, even if > > they > > > are on the public Internet (as long as you don't advertise > these > addresses > > > to a peer ISP). Hey, why not - nobody on the Internet is > actually > > > interested in accessing your WAN links, they are > interested in accessing > > > your end-hosts. So as long as your end-point addressing > is publicly > > > routable, it doesn't really matter if your intermediary > networks are > not. > > > > > > ""Symon Thurlow"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > Yes but then you lose troubleshooting capabilities etc. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: 13 October 2002 01:45 > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: can I use a /31 subnet to the link between > 2 routers eth > > > > [7:55480] > > > > > > > > > > > > Or even better, just use unnumbered interfaces. > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Bolton, Travis D [LTD]"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > I would still use a /30 mask if I was using > unregistered IP's. If I > > > > > was using standard IP's then maybe I would think about > using the > /31. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Symon Thurlow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 4:45 PM > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: RE: can I use a /31 subnet to the link > between 2 routers > eth > > > > > [7:55469] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > I stand corrected. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > Symon > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Bob McWhorter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: 12 October 2002 17:06 > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: RE: can I use a /31 subnet to the link > between 2 routers > eth > > > > > [7:55460] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Symon, > > > > > > > > > > Reference RFC 3021 > > > > > > > > > > Using 31-Bit Prefixes on IPv4 Point-to-Point Links > > > > > > > > > > HTH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf > > > > > Of Symon Thurlow > > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 7:59 AM > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: RE: can I use a /31 subnet to the link > between 2 routers > eth > > > > > [7:55454] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, if you work it out: > > > > > > > > > > Obviously the first three octets wil be all 1's, so if > you look at > the > > > > > > > > > last octet: > > > > > > > > > > 11111110 > > > > > > > > > > Which = 254. This only leaves you with 2 addresses per > subnet, and > > > > > since you need one address for the Network address and > one for the > > > > > Broadcast address, you no longer have any addresses > you can actually > > > > > use. > > > > > > > > > > A 30 bit subnet, where the last octet= > > > > > > > > > > 11111100 > > > > > > > > > > Equals 252. This means you have 4 addresses per > subnet. Taking away > > > > > one address for the Network and one for the Broadcast > address, this > > > > > leaves you one address for each end of the link. > > > > > > > > > > So I am not sure how you could use a /31. > > > > > > > > > > Symon > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: bbfaye [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > Sent: 12 October 2002 14:54 > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: can I use a /31 subnet to the link between 2 > routers eth > > > > > ports. [7:55450] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I used thought it shoul be /30 mask subnet... > > > > > but recently I saw some guy said: use /31 subnet to > save the > > > > > address.... I really confusing me... > > > > > > ###################################################################### > > > > > ## > > > > > ############# > > > > > Scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by > the Webvein > Mail > > > > > Gateway > > > > > > > > > > ######################################################################## > > > > > ############# > > > > > > > > > > ######################################################################## > > > > > ############# > > > > > Scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by > the Webvein > Mail > > > > > Gateway > > > > > > > > > > ######################################################################## > > > > > ############# > > > > > ######################################################################## > > > > ############# > > > > Scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by the > Webvein Mail > > > > Gateway > > > > > ######################################################################## > > > > ############# > ##################################################################################### > Scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by the > Webvein Mail Gateway > ##################################################################################### > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=55590&t=55586 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
