On May 29, 5:24am, Craig Columbus wrote:
}
} OK. I can accept that Microsoft (or Apple for that matter) would do
} something like this and then expect the world to revolve around
Actually, as Howard mentioned, neither of these companies
initiated the protocol, but that's a minor point.
} them. However, I'm confused as to the benefit. Why would anyone want a
} non-assigned default IP address to appear on their network? Do they really
} think that people will implement a non-RFC1918 compliant address space just
} to save configuration time? (Actually, I can think of several cases where
It does save configuration time, since this is for cases where no
configuration at all happens, most likely due to the lack of a real
administrator.
} How do Internet backbone routers (BGP ASs) deal with this traffic?
They don't. There is a reason why this address range is called
"link local". It's only useful within a single network segment that
isn't connected to any other networks.
} Let's say that I want to take the easy way out and I connect a small
} network to the Internet via an ISP. I'm not running NAT, but I'm running
} the 169.254 addresses inside my network. If I've got a static route to an
Then, you're SOL. To connect to the Internet, some kind of
configuration must happen (even, if it is just a box running NAT on the
outside interface and a DHCP server on the inside interface).
} ISP public address, and we're not exchanging routing information, I can't
} see how this traffic would ever get back to my network. If I'm exchanging
It wouldn't.
} routes with an ISP (via BGP or some other interior protocol), where and how
} do the 169.254 routes get filtered? There has to be some mechanism, or
It should be filtered at the network ingress point.
} there would be thousands of summary routes back to 169.254 showing up on
} the Internet table.
169.254 should never ever show up on the Internet, although I
wouldn't be surprised if it did. I've seen some pretty large ISP's put
RFC-1918 addresses on the global Internet, which is also a no-no.
} Any help in understanding this is appreciated.
The purpose of this is to setup small impromptu isolated networks
which often don't have an administrator with no configuration at all
required.
}-- End of excerpt from Craig Columbus
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
