Re: Charging for IPs

[Saku Ytti via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

On Thu, 10 Sept 2026 at 07:48, Owen DeLong via NANOG
<nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:

> If you’re going to ugly up the trace route that way, probably better to use Link Local (169.254.x.x) addresses than 
> RFC-1918.
>
> That way, the router (should) report a loopback address instead of the interface address in the trace route. Better 
> to have a routable
> Loopback reported than an RFC-1918 address in most cases.

Can you tell me some example platform(s) that work like this?

Any platform I've come across, if you want to send ICMP from a loop,
you need to define it, and will then not care what IP you have on the
interface.

But I do agree that RFC1918 as a link-net on the Internet makes very
little sense.

-- 
  ++ytti
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/HPOQDCXUNRQCED27OEVAQRXSKZ7JN474/