Noel Chiappa <jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf