> -----Original Message-----
> From: fooler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 2:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [plug] linux flavors
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ronneil Camara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 07:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [plug] linux flavors
>
>
>
> > The IP committee just termed
> > it as non-routable addresses because they cannot be routed
> over public
> WAN. We use
> > public-ip addresses on the Internet.
>
> ok here's an intriguing question. by tracerouting one of my
> friend's ip.
>
> 3 63 ms 31 ms 31 ms 207.2.12.157
> 4 93 ms 78 ms 47 ms 207.2.12.130
> 5 15 ms 78 ms 79 ms 192.168.100.18
> 6 250 ms 281 ms 391 ms 192.168.100.5
> 7 282 ms 437 ms 297 ms 203.177.15.198
> 8 * 312 ms 313 ms 203.177.14.238
>
> traceroute number 5 and 6 are private ip addresses. are there
> any violations
> in RFC1918? :->
>
There is! Do you think I will be able to receive an ICMP ECHO REPLY when I
ping those IP addresses 192.168.100.18 and 192.168.100.5? Of course not!
Anyways, I made a traceroute also to 203.177.14.238. I didn't receive any
ICMP ECHO REPLY from those two ip private addresses.
Sa tingin ko, they have a router configured as NAT. And another thing is
that, these two IP addresses are statically added to the router's routing
table. And I'm sure also that these routes aren't configured as
"REDISTRIBUTE NETWORK" so as not to become part of the routing table that is
exchange by BGPs. If they did that, then there will be an ambiguous routing.
Here is my traceroute.
[ronneil@smtprelay ronneil]$ /usr/sbin/traceroute 203.177.14.238
traceroute to 203.177.14.238 (203.177.14.238), 30 hops max, 38 byte packets
1 cisco6-s1.pacific.net.sg (192.169.39.5) 106.968 ms 363.214 ms 127.214
ms
2 pi-pasig-001.pacific.net.ph (210.23.234.1) 119.068 ms 114.874 ms
119.474 ms
3 if-11-6.bb2.LosAngeles.Teleglobe.net (207.45.212.193) 489.312 ms
556.606 ms 469.317 ms
4 if-6-0.core1.LosAngeles.Teleglobe.net (207.45.220.65) 469.245 ms
486.859 ms 489.328 ms
5 if-4-3.core1.PaloAlto.Teleglobe.net (207.45.222.229) 469.306 ms
466.800 ms *
6 if-3-0.core1.NewYork.Teleglobe.net (207.45.223.177) 600.861 ms 739.203
ms 626.534 ms
7 ix-8-3.core1.NewYork.Teleglobe.net (207.45.196.134) 609.029 ms 606.732
ms 629.321 ms
8 sjc-nyc-oc12.sjc2.above.net (208.185.156.161) 861.243 ms 638.798 ms
765.323 ms
9 core3.sjc2-core5.sjc2.above.net (208.185.156.65) 935.273 ms 636.679 ms
910.823 ms
10 core5-core3-oc48.sjc.above.net (208.184.102.205) 647.409 ms * 649.782
ms
11 main3-core5-oc3.sjc.above.net (216.200.0.210) 1588.974 ms 606.896 ms
629.300 ms
12 globe.com.ph (216.200.137.210) 648.975 ms 604.726 ms *
13 203.177.15.9 (203.177.15.9) 859.331 ms 794.825 ms 819.348 ms
14 203.127.225.5 (203.127.225.5) 778.981 ms 815.040 ms 919.356 ms
15 203.177.15.198 (203.177.15.198) 2078.659 ms 1644.769 ms 1318.894 ms
16 203.177.14.238 (203.177.14.238) 1449.020 ms * 909.726 ms
Anyways, what are we really trying to solve?
Here is my synopsis
1. RFC1918 are also called non-routable address.
2. RFC1918 are really routable addresses if you use it for your own private
network.
3. RFC1918 is a way to solve IP address depletion.
4. IP is a layer three protocol and is a routable or routed protocols.
5. RIP, OSPF, or BGP are routing protocols.
Ok. :-)
onie
-
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
