Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.networking > #1765

Re: 192.168

Show all headers | View raw

On 2012-10-20, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-10-20, orcus@pwr.wroc.pl wrote:
>> Nope - a lot of ISPs use privete adresses to connect their routers. 
>> They only block trafic with wrong private or source destinations on
>> interfaces connected directly to clients. Sometimes we can see
>> "non-routable" adsresses in output of traceroute - somewere in
>> "Internet".
>
> Those ISPs are violating RFC1918, and do not count.  If an address
> shows up in traceroute output, I should be able to access it.

Which fragment fragment of RFC they violate? They use private addresses 
inside their network and filter out routing information about this
subnets. I see no violation. Moreover using 4 IP addresses from ranges
assigned to ISP for point to point links is a waste of IPv4 addresses.

If we exclude ISPs from our discussion we still can use 10
subnets with private addresses in our company and set up routing for
them(even dynamic). The point is that calling RFC1918 addresses 
"non-routeable" is semantic abuse*.

*) Is "semantic abuse" correct phrase in English? 

-- 
Best Regards
orcus

Back to comp.os.linux.networking | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

192.168 bob@coolfone.comze.com - 2012-10-17 08:37 -0700
  Re: 192.168 Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-10-17 16:40 +0100
    Re: 192.168 ein <ein@no.spam> - 2012-10-17 20:04 +0200
      Re: 192.168 Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2012-10-17 21:23 +0200
        Re: 192.168 ein <ein@no.spam> - 2012-10-17 22:37 +0200
          Re: 192.168 Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2012-10-18 18:29 +0200
            Re: 192.168 ein <ein@no.spam> - 2012-10-19 07:54 +0200
  Re: 192.168 Maurizio Loreti <mlo@foobar.it> - 2012-10-17 20:37 +0200
  Re: 192.168 unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-10-18 01:43 +0000
    Re: 192.168 Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2012-10-18 09:22 +0100
      Re: 192.168 ein <ein@no.spam> - 2012-10-19 07:51 +0200
        Re: 192.168 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2012-10-19 12:16 +0200
          Re: 192.168 orcus@pwr.wroc.pl - 2012-10-19 18:54 +0000
            Re: 192.168 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-10-20 06:51 +0000
              Re: 192.168 orcus@pwr.wroc.pl - 2012-10-20 07:46 +0000
                Re: 192.168 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-10-20 08:00 +0000
                Re: 192.168 orcus@pwr.wroc.pl - 2012-10-20 13:43 +0000
                Re: 192.168 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2012-10-20 14:15 +0000
                Re: 192.168 orcus@pwr.wroc.pl - 2012-10-20 14:54 +0000
                Re: 192.168 Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid> - 2012-10-20 15:21 -0500
                Re: 192.168 Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid> - 2012-10-20 15:20 -0500
          Re: 192.168 Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2012-10-20 13:55 +0200
        Re: 192.168 unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-10-21 00:33 +0000
          Re: 192.168 orcus@pwr.wroc.pl - 2012-10-21 10:22 +0000
            Re: 192.168 Markus Koßmann <mkossmann_n1@gmx.de> - 2012-10-21 15:53 +0200
          Re: 192.168 GangGreene <GangGreene@example.com> - 2012-10-21 07:06 -0400
  Re: 192.168 Vanni <Vanniz@nospam.thanks> - 2012-10-18 07:56 +0200
    Re: 192.168 Johann Klammer <klammerj@NOSPAM.a1.net> - 2012-10-18 06:40 +0200

csiph-web