Re: uRPF Loose Check Mode vs. ACL

[Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>]

On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 12:50:53AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2002 22:11:12 EDT, Richard A Steenbergen said:
> > What we all really need is a protocol which can distribute filtering 
> > information network-wide. Go make one. :)
>
> No, what we need is a protocol that can do *secured* distribution of
> filtering info net-wide.  Otherwise, some bozo is going to accidentally
> inject a flter for 127/8, causing as much fun as the announcement of same
> a few years ago.  And I'm *sure* there's at least a few people on this
> list that would be *very* tempted to inject filters for RFC1918 space
> for the benefit of those providers that don't egress filter it currently ;)

Nononono, by network-wide I ment *MY* network not the Internet. :) Though
I really wouldn't mind seeing a well known community for "nexthop null0".
How can people sit around pontificating on useless features for useless
protocols all day long, and yet not do this?

BTW, I don't know what announcing 127/8 would break since that should
never leave or enter any systems, and I still take issue with the need to
filter 1918 packets.

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177  (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA  B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)