North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: rfc1918 ignorant
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 01:49:37PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:40:03 EDT, Dave Temkin said: > > If it's being used for purely transit then your third paragraph doesn't > > apply at all. The traffic is not originating or terminating there, it is > > merely passing through. > > If it shows up on a traceroute, it originated an ICMP packet. > > 10 * * * > 11 * * * > 12 * * * > > would be "proper" behavior if it was *purely* transit-only. Perhaps it should send back the icmp packet from a loopback interface that has a publically routed ip on it. that would allow p-mtu to work as well as you'd get the packet saying frag-needed and you can still get a general idea of what route the packets are taking (although not the specific interface). it would allow people involved to look at their lsp routes or forwarding tables to determine where the fault is without revelaing information they would rather not about their infrastructure. "ip icmp response-interface loopback0" junipers already do this if you traceroute directly to them (ie: they're the last hop in the traceroute) and send back the packet from their lo interface if you have 'default-address-selection' configured. (i think that's the keyword) - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from firstname.lastname@example.org clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.