No.
1918-addresses are often used for back-to-back connections, when there's no need for a direct reachabilty like Telnet.
It's used to save some address-space. But it looks strange, when 1918-addresses are visible in a Trace.
That's why we use only official addresses for these connections.
Greets
G�nti
|-----Original Message-----
|From: John Morgan Salomon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|Sent: Montag, 16. Juni 2003 12:02
|To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|Subject: Re: [swinog] RFC1918 ip's within trace on normal provider-link
|. .
|
|
|I always thought this came from things like someone's
|PVC admin interface IP for stuff like frame relay links, no?
|
|-John
|
|
|Guentensperger, Robert wrote:
|
|> Hi
|>
|> Within a trace it's possible.
|> That happens quite often.
|>
|> As long as RFC1918-addresses are not announced, it's OK.
|>
|> Greets
|> G�nti
|>
|> |-----Original Message-----
|> |From: Nik Hug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|> |Sent: Montag, 16. Juni 2003 11:44
|> |To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> |Subject: [swinog] RFC1918 ip's within trace on normal
|provider-link ..
|> |
|> |
|> |Hello All,
|> |
|> |I've some customer asking questions about the setup of our
|> |upstream-provider.
|> |Within the traceroute there are Ip's from 10.x.y.z and
|> |192.168.x.y to see.
|> |I don't like it either - only because I've never seen
|> |something like this
|> |before - but that's a weak argument ;-)
|> |
|> |What do you think about this? Is this setup wrong/bad ?
|> |
|> |Thanx for your comments!
|> |
|> |Greetings
|> |
|> |Nik
|> |
|> |----------------------------------------------
|> |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive:
|> |http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/
|> |
|>
|
|----------------------------------------------
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive:
|http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/
|
