nanog mailing list archives
Re: rfc 1918?
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk () bbnplanet com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:33:53 -0500
There are good reasons to want to get those packets (traceroutes from people who have numbered their networks in rfc1918 networks,No John, there are exactly zero reasons, good or otherwise, for allowing any traffic with RFC-1918 source addresses to traverse any part of the public Internet. Period! :-)
You are being religious, and I shall not descend into this sort of discussion with you. It is simply non productive nor professional. I disagree, and believe that other reasonable people do so as well, and there is therefore argument over this issue. People should not assert canonicity upon it. End of story. --jhawk
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)
- RE: rfc 1918? Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Ariel Biener (Feb 24)