Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
From: Scott Gifford <sgifford () tir com>
Date: 10 Sep 2001 16:49:28 -0400


miquels () cistron-office nl (Miquel van Smoorenburg) writes:

In article <F5F3FBBFC94DD4118E4500D0B74A095F013E70E1 () EMAIL2>,
Hire, Ejay <Ejay.Hire () Broadslate net> wrote:
Using RFC 1918 space inside a network on transit segments that will be
passing data but not generating it makes sense.

Only if the MTUs on all interfaces of the routers are the same.
Otherwise you might generate a ICMP size exceeded message that
will never reach the sender, breaking Path MTU Discovery.

Not to get involved in the RFC1918 for routers topic again, but the
NAT discussions here got me wondering if much of this could be solved
by having an edge router translate all of the internal router-network
addresses to some constant, real address.  Setting aside opinions
about the brokenness of NAT, can anybody think of anything this would
break?

-----ScottG.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault