""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > At 5:25 PM +0000 7/21/02, richard dumoulin wrote: > >Well, I interpret it that you can ping the serial, no ? > > > > I would assume that. It makes no sense for an ISP to use unnumbered > interfaces, because it easily can use /30 or /31 private addresses. > It could use a small part of its registered address space, which > would let someone traceroute to the gateway.
CL: I have a question about that. Recently I was doing some work for a government entity, with multiple sites statewide. I was doing some traceroutes to ascertain paths and potential security issues. this organization had contracted with a third party of internet services, who also was contractually responsible for firewalls and other security devices and procedures. In any case, I saw two interesting phenomena while doing my testing. One was the presence of private IP numbers in some of the paths. The other was the lack of anything from particular hops along the path. EG the infamous * * * response, although the trace would continue and conclude to the destination I wanted to reach. as all my work commenced from my office across the public internet to the destination, this led me to conclude that the presence of 1918 addresses does not necessary disallow the successful completion of traces. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=49364&t=49347 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
