Noel Chiappa <jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Maybe we should allocate a chunk of space explicity for tunnel termination,
instead of using 1918 for that?
Interesting... I've learned to avoid 1918 for tunnel endpoints at
almost-any cost: you lose all diagnostic packets.
As it is now, I assign fully-routable IPs, and try to static-route
so the endpoint actually receives traffic to that IP. (It doesn't always
work.)
I would think it could be re-used across enterprises (but I'm probably
not familiar enough with tunnels to see some issue there),
Presumably we wouldn't receive traffic to these IPs, but at least
the outgoing ICMP errors wouldn't be blocked.
especially considering people are (re-)using 1918 space for that now.
Anyway, if that did work, it should kill a bunch of these problems.
It certainly seems like an improvement...
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf