nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC1918 conformance
From: Tony Bates <tbates () cisco com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:56:02 -0800
Andrew Partan <asp () partan com> writes: * They sure look reserved to me: * note% whois RESERVED * IANA (RESERVED-1) RESERVED 0.0. * 0.0 * IANA (RESERVED-3) RESERVED 128.0. * 0.0 * IANA (RESERVED-4) RESERVED 191.255. * 0.0 * IANA (RESERVED-5) RESERVED 223.255.25 * 5.0 * IANA (RESERVED-7) Reserved 64.0.0.0 - 95.0. * 0.0 * IANA (RESERVED-8) Reserved 96.0.0.0 - 126.0. * 0.0 * * Actually it looks like I should add the top 1/2 of the old A space as well. * 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: *** Bogus 69.1.0.0/16 from AS1849 *** Bogus 69.2.0.0/16 from AS1849 *** Bogus 90.0.0.0 from AS4747 *** Bogus 103.40.99.0/24 from AS3249 --Tony - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- RFC1918 conformance Pierre Thibaudeau (Feb 10)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 10)
- 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 10)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Tony Bates (Feb 17)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance bgp4-adm (Feb 10)