-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

,--- D Stussy writes:
| "Pascal Hambourg" <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote in message
| news:g46f2o$2h1o$1@biggoron.nerim.net...
|| Martijn Lievaart a écrit :
|| > What you have to understand is that routing takes place on the
|| > destination address. [...]
||
|| This is all nice, but RFC 3330 states about the three private blocks :
|| Addresses within this block should not appear on the public Internet
||
|| And RFC 1918 states :
|| Because private addresses have no global meaning, routing information
|| about private networks shall not be propagated on inter-enterprise
|| links, and packets with private source or destination addresses
|| should not be forwarded across such links.
||
|| A "should" requirement may be ignored if and only if there is a very
|| good reason to do so. What may be the good reason to send traffic with a
|| private address to a destination on another network ? I do not believe
|| that ISP's and carriers suffer from public address shortage.

| Internally, they're using 10.0.0.0/8, but what you might not be seeing is
| the Network Address Translation (NAT) being done at their border router as
| the packets cross into and from their network to/from the Internet.

Where is the NAT ? If it is NAT, I don't think I'll be able to see their
internal address. It is simply packet forwarding between interfaces.

| The border router is at IPv4 address 207.46.34.189.

Or it is, 207.46.46.67 ?

Thanks all for the replies.
- --
·-- ·- ···· ·--- ·- ···- ·- ·--·-· --· -- ·- ·· ·-·· ·-·-·- -·-· --- --
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkhnDbEACgkQHy+EEHYuXnREVQCff5SGuTwohR JZLhAJdJNpKDdR
8ZoAn2LA1EqecE892bTGGyLwbKNWGzxe
=/jHP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----