nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC1918 conformance
From: Tony Bates <tbates () cisco com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:26:43 -0800
Right now it checks for: >= 64/8 && <= 127/8 > 211/8 RFC1918 set of prefixes --Tony Andrew Partan <asp () partan com> writes: * > This would be good as I report each week in my report possible bogus * > routes but no one seems to care to filter (or fix this). Today it says: * * Which routes to you consider to be bogons? * --asp () partan com (Andrew Partan) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: RFC1918 conformance, (continued)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Bill Manning (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Tony Bates (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Alex P. Rudnev (Feb 11)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Jeffrey C. Ollie (Feb 11)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Alex P. Rudnev (Feb 12)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Dana Hudes (Feb 12)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Alex P. Rudnev (Feb 13)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Jeffrey C. Ollie (Feb 13)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Bill Manning (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Tony Bates (Feb 17)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance bgp4-adm (Feb 10)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance David Schwartz (Feb 10)