nanog mailing list archives
Re: Filtering on RFC1918 cruft
From: Sean Donelan <SEAN () SDG DRA COM>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 4:36:25 -0600 (CST)
deny ip 198.32.146.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 (543 matches) deny ip 198.32.176.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 (10 matches) deny ip 192.157.69.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 (96 matches) deny ip 198.32.128.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 (335 matches) ya, ya, teh last four aren't rfc1918 but i filter them anyway (nap dmz's) :) lot's of people announcing them. the first two are the only rfc1918 nets i see announced on our nap routers.
I used to wonder about announcing them too. I came up with reasons on both sides, and in the end decided it didn't matter for real traffic. Real traffic isn't sourced or destined for the exchange point networks. On the other hand, the users most likely to send traffic to or from an exchange point network are also the network engineers configuring the announcements. Announcing the networks make network debugging (and other network hacking) a lot easier. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Filtering on RFC1918 cruft Paul Ferguson (Jan 17)
- Re: Filtering on RFC1918 cruft Perry E. Metzger (Jan 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Filtering on RFC1918 cruft Brett D. Watson (Jan 17)
- Re: Filtering on RFC1918 cruft Sean Donelan (Jan 18)
- Re: Filtering on RFC1918 cruft Randy Bush (Jan 18)
- Re: Filtering on RFC1918 cruft Bill Manning (Jan 18)
- Re: Filtering on RFC1918 cruft Randy Bush (Jan 18)
- Re: Filtering on RFC1918 cruft Randy Bush (Jan 18)