nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC 1918
From: woods () weird com (Greg A. Woods)
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:13:37 -0400 (EDT)
[ On Friday, July 14, 2000 at 23:54:11 (-0400), Richard A. Steenbergen wrote: ]
Subject: Re: RFC 1918 The only real reason to filter 1918 space is if you are afraid there will be an IP conflict between something you have numbered in your 1918 space, and the responses which could be generated by someone elses 1918 space (for example, a dest unreachable coming from someone's 1918 P-t-P sourced to something you have an IP for as well).
Though technically you're right, this kind of attitude is exactly the problem. Everyone should filter all RFC1918 usage on public links, regardless of whether they themselves use is, or their customers use it, or not. To not do such filtering is to be a bad neighbour. Of course the same "good neighbour" policy would suggest that everyone should *mutually* filter any addresses (src or dst) that are not their own or their neighbours. -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods () acm org> <robohack!woods> Planix, Inc. <woods () planix com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods () weird com>
Current thread:
- RE: RFC 1918, (continued)
- RE: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Todd R. Stroup (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 15)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bill Fumerola (Jul 15)
- RE: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Todd R. Stroup (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 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)