Re: Charging for IPs

[Kevin Tillery via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

On 10 September 2026 08:47:01 CEST, Saku Ytti via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sept 2026 at 07:48, Owen DeLong via NANOG
> <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
>
> > If you’re going to ugly up the trace route that way, probably better to use Link Local (169.254.x.x) addresses than 
> > RFC-1918.
> >
> > That way, the router (should) report a loopback address instead of the interface address in the trace route. Better 
> > to have a routable
> > Loopback reported than an RFC-1918 address in most cases.
>
> Can you tell me some example platform(s) that work like this?
>
> Any platform I've come across, if you want to send ICMP from a loop,
> you need to define it, and will then not care what IP you have on the
> interface.
>
> But I do agree that RFC1918 as a link-net on the Internet makes very
> little sense.
>
> -- 
>  ++ytti
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list 
> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/HPOQDCXUNRQCED27OEVAQRXSKZ7JN474/
Linux uses 192.0.0.8 by default when an IPv6-addressed-only router that is forwarding IPv4 needs to generate an ICMP 
packet. This is in some IANA reserved space, and is standardized for some similar function, and I believe is in the 
process of being standardized for this function too.
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/LMGDASRCLWPN4TY4QZ5CVDZ4RX4G56AJ/