Noel Chiappa <j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Maybe we should allocate a chunk of space explicity for tunnel termination,
> instead of using 1918 for that?

   Interesting... I've learned to avoid 1918 for tunnel endpoints at
almost-any cost: you lose all diagnostic packets.

   As it is now, I assign fully-routable IPs, and try to static-route
so the endpoint actually receives traffic to that IP. (It doesn't always
work.)

> I would think it could be re-used across enterprises (but I'm probably
> not familiar enough with tunnels to see some issue there),

   Presumably we wouldn't receive traffic to these IPs, but at least
the outgoing ICMP errors wouldn't be blocked.

> especially considering people are (re-)using 1918 space for that now.
> Anyway, if that did work, it should kill a bunch of these problems.

   It certainly seems like an improvement...

--
John Leslie <j...@jlc.net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Reply via email to