On 2001-03-01 10:38, Jonas Luster wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED] about...:
JL> * Brian Steele sez:
JL>
JL> > You think that's bad - how about this traceroute to
JL> > www.caribbean-connexion.com...
JL> >
JL> > 0.so-4-0-0.XL1.DCA6.ALTER.NET 152.63.38.134
JL> > 0.so-7-0-0.XR1.DCA6.ALTER.NET 152.63.38.86
JL> > 0.so-4-0-0.TR1.DCA6.ALTER.NET 152.63.11.101
JL> > 121.at-5-0-0.TR1.ATL1.ALTER.NET 146.188.141.57
JL> > 100.at-6-0-0.XR1.ATL1.ALTER.NET 146.188.232.81
JL> > 195.ATM7-0.GW3.ATL1.ALTER.NET 152.63.83.109
JL> > bs-birmingham-gw.customer.ALTER.NET 157.130.68.10
JL> > (no rDNS) 207.203.159.130
JL> > (no rDNS) 172.19.16.118 <---- definitely a private IP!!!!
JL> > warren.lighthost.com 216.76.5.1
JL>
JL> What exactly would you consider 'bad' about this route?
That it is visible in the traceroute. It's absolutely OK to use private
addresses as transport networks between routers, but I would recommend that the
address presented to the outer world is either non existing or a valid one.
/P
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
