[ale] next stupid ipchains question

[Gary Maltzen]

1) Given the number of 192.168 and 172.16-31 and 10. addresses that hit my
router, not everyone is as circumspect about not routing RFC-1918. (Nor does
this address the number of public DNS servers *advertising* hosts with
RFC-1918 addresses)

2) I've not tried it, but I should think you could route these addresses
in-the-open between (internet-routable) endpoints through use of appropriate
routing tables at each end. It certainly would be an interesting
experiment....

for example, suppose (all IP addresses are fictional)...
I wonder if something like this might work...

  host newyork-gw
   internal IP 192.168.22.1
   Internet IP 17.18.19.20
   route -net 192.168.23.0 gw 20.19.18.17
   route -net 192.168.22.0 internal

  host sanfran-gw
   internal IP 192.168.23.1
   Internet IP 20.19.18.17
   route -net 192.168.22.0 gw 17.18.19.20
   route -net 192.168.23.0 internal

I suspect whether or not it would work depends on whether or not intervening
routers supported source-routed packets; many don't.

----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Knapka <jknapka at earthlink.net>
To: ale at ale.org


> I have worked in environments with multiple 192.168.x.x subnets
> and routed packets amongst them, with a Linux router no less.
> Possibly you mean they can't be routed over the Internet, which
> is true, but only by convention, AFAIK.


--
To unsubscribe: mail majordomo at ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.