nanog mailing list archives
RE: rfc 1918?
From: "Mark Radabaugh" <mark () amplex net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:12:14 -0500
It is my intention to avoid having 1918 addresses leaving my network. At our egress points the filters are fairly short -- they allow only traffic with our IP source addresses to leave. This was my interpretation of the RFC's. Some in this discussion seem to be saying that we should also filter for RFC1918 destinations. Am I reading this correctly? I can see that packets destined for RFC1918 addresses will leave our network (due to default routes) but are promptly dropped at the first BGP speaking router they encounter. Is it worth the extra router processing time to check all outgoing packet destinations as well? I can't see where this extra filtering is worth the trouble. Mark Radabaugh VP, Amplex (419)833-3635 mark () amplex net
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)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)