[rescue] Re: RFC-1918's on a PUBLIC network? why!!
Patrick Giagnocavo +1.717.201.3366
patrick at zill.net
Sat Aug 16 22:37:16 CDT 2003
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 08:12:13PM -0700, Jason Ackley wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Brian A. Seklecki wrote:
> > having to allocate thousands of /30s for WAN links. It sucks because a
> > reverse traceroute always gets dropped at that next-to-last hop. What's
> That is a bad decision on their part. They can justify a /30 for WAN
> links to ARIN/other, as long as the overall subnetting makes sense..
I dunno, in my experience it is quite usual to use RFC1918 for point
to point links in such cases, e.g. when getting a T1 from one company
they recommended using 10.1.1.1 or somesuch for the two "internal"
serial interfaces (i.e. ISP-facing side on my router and
customer-facing side on theirs).
More information about the rescue