In the referenced message, Stephen J. Wilcox said: > > On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote: > > > > > In the referenced message, Sean M. Doran said: > > > Basically, arguing that the routing system should carry around > > > even more information is backwards. It should carry less. > > > If IXes need numbers at all (why???) then use RFC 1918 addresses > > > and choose one of the approaches above to deal with questions > > > about why 1918 addresses result in "messy traceroutes." > > > > > > Fewer routes, less address consumption, tastes great, less filling. > > > > > > Sean. > > > > Do you: > > 1) Not believe in PMTU-D > > RFC1918 does not break path-mtu, filtering it does tho..
sending RFC1918 addressed packets across enterprise boundaries is against RFC1918. RFC1918 states to filter ingress/egress at enterprise boundaries. Hence, filtering RFC1918 addresses is part of RFC1918. Therefore, the use of addresses where they are likely to generate traffic which violates RFC1918, is, well, a violation of RFC1918. This applies regardless of the ICMP error message generated. > > 2) Not believe in filtering RFC1918 sourced traffic at enterprise boundaries > > (of which an exchange would be a boundary) > > What for? You'll find many more much more mailicious packets coming from > legit routable address space. Who said anything about malicious? In any event, ICMP error messages are generally useful with a few minor exceptions. Things like Source Quench, unreachables, TTL expired, and Can't Frag (as examples of useful icmp.) <snip> > For p2p you can use unnumbered.. it wont work on exchanges but i agree > they shouldnt be rfc1918. I agree, however, most folks want to see the topology, some just choose to violate RFC1918 in order to do it. > Steve