Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Yes. If that traceroute leaked out to the 'net at large - instead of > stopping within your network (vsnl, ultimately) ... that'd be stupid.
What u mean? vsnl is part of my network? Here's the traceroute with reverse name lookups enabled... [rohan@sanitarium rohan]$ traceroute 192.168.1.2 traceroute to 192.168.1.2 (192.168.1.2), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets 1 shiwap (192.168.100.1) 1.580 ms 0.324 ms 0.346 ms 2 203.197.38.17 (203.197.38.17) 2663.883 ms 2027.444 ms 3430.735 ms 3 203.197.38.1 (203.197.38.1) 1479.305 ms 319.161 ms 619.327 ms 4 203.197.31.126 (203.197.31.126) 4870.461 ms 1108.654 ms 919.926 ms 5 203.197.33.134 (203.197.33.134) 199.560 ms 488.896 ms * 6 lvsb-vsb-stm-1.Bbone.vsnl.net.in (202.54.2.190) 1778.865 ms 2578.860 ms 1350.166 ms 7 * 202.54.115.129 (202.54.115.129) 861.277 ms * [rohan@sanitarium rohan]$ So, that last router is on the VNSL backbone. I don't believe _ANY_ ISP should use private IPs. If they do, they should use some sort of encapsulation (right word?). Maybe proxy arp or something similar to hide the routers. I'm not sure actually! :-) Just this private IP business almost ruined my day, as one of our installation sites has two servers with ips of 192.168.1.2 and 192.168.2.2 And the admin over there shut down machine 192.168.1.2, but then was complaining to me that i could ping 192.168.1.2!!! I was stuck until i did that traceroute. -- arc_of_descent _______________________________________________ linux-india-help mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-india-help
