Hi, On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 09:10:12AM +0100, [email protected] wrote: > > Breaking PMTUd is OK? Thanks very much. > > We block RFC1918 source addresses at our borders. This is not > negotiable. If it breaks PMTUd because some operator used 1918 > addresses on links, too bad...
In case my opinion on this was not obvious (I received some private e-mail
concerning doubts): I'm very much opposed to breaking PMTUd or traceroutes
by using RFC1918 addresses on links.
(If you can get your routers to source ICMPs from global addresses, then
I have no issue with the RFC1918 part on the transfer networks - but ICMP
is important, and breaking it is bad).
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgpDVmh84qWbb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
