nanog mailing list archives
RE: RFC 1918
From: rdobbins () netmore net
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 11:21:53 -0700
If people don't want whiners niggling them about the RFC 1918 addrs showing up in traceroutes, they should just put RFC 1918 filters on their borders, so that the whiners simply won't get returns to their traceroutes.
-Bennett
I don't know if denying folks the use of legitimate testing tools due to deliberate misuse of RFC 1918 addressing - after all, its title is 'Address Allocation for Private Internet' - is such a hot idea. To quote from the RFC: With the proliferation of TCP/IP technology worldwide, including outside the Internet itself, an increasing number of non-connected enterprises use this technology and its addressing capabilities for sole intra-enterprise communications, without any intention to ever directly connect to other enterprises or the Internet itself. I don't see much ambiguity there concerning the intent of the authors, nor the IETF in accepting their premises. --------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () netmore net> // 818.535.5024 voice
Current thread:
- Re: RFC 1918, (continued)
- Re: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 15)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bill Fumerola (Jul 15)
- Re: RFC 1918 Todd R. Stroup (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Richard A. Steenbergen (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Eric A. Hall (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Rick (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Richard A. Steenbergen (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Dan Hollis (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Greg A. Woods (Jul 16)
- Re: RFC 1918 Michael Shields (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Greg A. Woods (Jul 16)
- Re: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 Stephen Kowalchuk (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 ww (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 Eric A. Hall (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 ww (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 Scott McGrath (Jul 18)
- Re: RFC 1918 Stephen Kowalchuk (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 ww (Jul 17)