Your talking about 192.169.ect.ect 10.x.x.x ? A Cisco will route and advertise those blocks just like any other addresses unless you filter them out. There is no hard coded rule in a cisco that stops joe idiot from annoucing 192.169.x.x to the world besides the clueful admin and his bogon filter. Heck, sometimes you can go 2 or 3 AS's deep during a traceroute before you hit a router dropping RFC1918 space.
At least, thats from my own experience from ISO 12.x. On Fri, 2003-03-14 at 20:06, Eric (Deacon) wrote: > > > A router (by my reckoning, anyway) would be any device that routes > > > packets between networks. A NAT device does this; a switch does not. > > > > I think thats correct, be it $100 or $38,000 not including > > operating system (thanks Cisco) if it moves packets from IP > > network to another, its a router. No need for router racism. > > Negative. RFC1918 addresses are also classed as 'non routable' > addresses. The packets DO NOT get routed, they get translated, there's a > difference between the 2, but most people buy into the marketing hoopla > and don't wish to see that. > > -- > Eric (the Deacon remix) > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux -- SQLBoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.playway.net _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
