IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Mon, 31 March 2003 21:00 UTC

Received: from ran.ietf.org (ran.ietf.org [10.27.6.60]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA24133; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:00:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 1906YB-0001iV-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:10:39 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 1906Te-0001SE-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:05:58 -0500
Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23789 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:49:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h2VKpnWc007711; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:51:49 -0500
Message-Id: <200303312051.h2VKpnWc007711@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 03/30/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:17:44 PST." <3E88A268.4010309@cisco.com>
References: <077601c2f7be$e0fcdc70$ee1a4104@eagleswings> <3E88A268.4010309@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_115629490P"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:51:49 -0500
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:17:44 PST, Eliot Lear said:
> Right up till the point where two companies start communicating with one 
> another directly with site-locals.  Even if there is a router frob to 
> keep the scopes scoped, you can bet it won't be used until someone 
> realizes that the above problem occurred.

Well.. the same thing is true for 2 companies that get merged and both have
their 10/8 and 192.168/16 nets - then the router frobs get used.  I've heard
of one poor network engineer that had *5* 1:1 NATs separating one end of the
company from the other.

And of course, we all know that all RFC1918 users are conscientious about
filtering at their border routers.

"It's deja vu all over again" -- Yogi Berra

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email