nanog mailing list archives
Re: rfc 1918?
From: bill manning <bmanning@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:49:32 -0800
SMcGrath () dhhs state nh us wrote:
Agreed Valdis, Our upstream's use 1918 addresses internally so that 1918 addresses are constantly bouncing off our filters we have an aggressive egress filter which makes sure no 1918's leak and pollute the internet ;-} and filtering on core routers is a suboptimal solution RFC 1819 addresses (10 points to the person who knows the predecessor) NEED to be filtered at the border IMHO. Scott
AS long as you are filtering, could you -PLEASE- add the SMTP filter to prevent email w/ RFC 1918 addresses in the headers from leaking out of your networks? RFC 1597. --bill
Current thread:
- Re: rfc 1918?, (continued)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Shawn McMahon (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Richard A. Steenbergen (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Adrian Chadd (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Ariel Biener (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? SMcGrath (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Rancken (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? SMcGrath (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? bill manning (Feb 24)
- RE: rfc 1918? Mark Borchers (Feb 24)
- RE: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Scott Francis (Feb 24)
- RE: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- RE: rfc 1918? Chris Davis (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Ron Buchalski (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? SMcGrath (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? bill manning (Feb 25)