Re: can I use a /31 subnet to the link between 2 r [7:55586]
you can try an extended ping with the record bit set, maybe it tell you all routes in that case. ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" a icrit dans le message de news: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 > > Traceroute is fundamental but it's not reliable. ISPs have been infamous for > years for hiding hops to make it look like the paths through their networks > are shorter than the paths through their competitors' networks. And that's > just one of many reasons that they use private addressing. > > Priscilla > > > > > > -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
RE: can I use a /31 subnet to the link between 2 r [7:55586]
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 > > > > > T
RE: can I use a /31 subnet to the link between 2 r [7:55586]
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 Traceroute is fundamental but it's not reliable. ISPs have been infamous for years for hiding hops to make it look like the paths through their networks are shorter than the paths through their competitors' networks. And that's just one of many reasons that they use private addressing. Priscilla > > -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 > bet
