nanog mailing list archives
Re: 10.0.0
From: Bil Herd <bil () zeus jersey net>
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 08:07:48 -0400 (EDT)
<written about another example>
Of course, RFC1918 addresses should not appear in the global routing table. This is a fine example of people not taking the responsibility to ensure [filter] that if they do use them, they do not leak.
A couple of weeks ago we received a complaint from a customer of a customer. They could get to some places but not others including us. This is the traceroute that the dialup customer generated trying to hit one of my customers. 1 121 ms 124 ms 112 ms wchspawcsap01.bellatlantic.net[192.168.107.173] 2 114 ms 118 ms 161 ms 192.168.107.174 3 126 ms 123 ms 123 ms 206.125.197.69 4 304 ms 292 ms 261 ms ATM5-0-9.dc01.IConNet.NET [204.245.127.157] 5 132 ms 135 ms 126 ms mae-east.netaxs.net [192.41.177.87] 6 159 ms 136 ms 136 ms philly-dc-gw-t3-h3-0.netaxs.net[206.161.90.2] 7 146 ms 136 ms 138 ms 207.106.127.6 8 * * * Request timed out. 9 * * * Request timed out. A doublecheck of the forward DNS gave me: Name: wchspawcsap01.bellatlantic.net Address: 192.168.107.173 Aliases: It would seem that they not only use the RFC1918 addresses but they have forward DNS set up for it, and evidently reverse DNS is set up internally for line one of the traceroute to resolve. Or maybe I am missing something. Bil - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- 10.0.0 Janet Pippin (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Ehud Gavron (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Jared Mauch (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Paul Ferguson (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Bil Herd (May 31)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: 10.0.0 Dave O'Shea (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Philip J. Nesser II (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Alec H. Peterson (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 John Hawkinson (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Philip J. Nesser II (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Danny McPherson (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Daniel Senie (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Dave O'Shea (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Tony Li (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Ehud Gavron (May 30)