nanog mailing list archives
Re: rfc 1918?
From: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall () ehsco com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:22:27 -0800
You're not crazy, and UUNet should be filtering them.
There are good reasons to want to get those packets (traceroutes from people who have numbered their networks in rfc1918 networks,
That's not a good reason. Nobody should be generating public traffic from those addresses, "making them work" is not an Internet-friendly decision. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Current thread:
- rfc 1918? Chris Davis (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? John Hawkinson (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? John Hawkinson (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? John Hawkinson (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- RE: rfc 1918? Mark Radabaugh (Feb 24)
- RE: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] RE: rfc 1918? Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- RE: [NANOG] RE: rfc 1918? Mark Radabaugh (Feb 24)
- duh (Re: [NANOG] Re: RE: rfc 1918?) Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? John Hawkinson (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)