nanog mailing list archives
Re: rfc 1918?
From: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall () ehsco com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:56:42 -0800
John Hawkinson wrote:
No John, there are exactly zero reasons, good or otherwise
I disagree, and believe that other reasonable people do so as well, and there is therefore argument over this issue.
Some people believe the earth is flat, so that issue is undecided? hehe RFC1918 addresses are not "free addresses" they are private-use ONLY addresses which must not appear in public networking space. It cannot be made much clearer than that. Science has spoken. RFC1918 addresses on public interfaces are bad. Doesn't matter who disagrees with it or how convenient it is to adopt. There is consensus on this issue. "Stephen J. Wilcox" wrote:
Altho Path MTU from RFC1918 P2P links will arrive and if you block them you'll find strange things occur on transfering data so you cant say nothing should come on 1918 space.
Exactly why they should be expunged from ISP backbones. What if an ICMP-DU message had to go the other way, from ISP space out to the Internet? -- 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)
- RE: rfc 1918? Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Ariel Biener (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 24)