nanog mailing list archives
Re: Someones being naughty again...
From: Fancy Feast <alex () sprint net>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 13:19:47 -0500 (EST)
All 10.x.x.x networks should be filtered by all competent upstreams. The same goes for 127 and 224 ;) is NAT that hard to configure? Alex On Sat, 14 Mar 1998, Marc Hurst wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 1998 jlixfeld () idirect ca wrote:No, you should definetly not be able to ping it. Where are you in respect to home.net? If you are not directly connected to home.net and if you can ping that IP, then @home is trying to advertise 10.0.184.0 to their upstreams and they are accepting those advertisments. If you are on home.net then you will be able to see them. That is definetly wrong though! I can see if you use 10.x net for un-advertised touch-down nets between two routers, but you should definetly not be able to ping them from afar.No, I'm definitely not part of the @home net. I'm coming in off a dial-up of an independant ISP in Toronto (UUnet/Sprint feeds I believe...). M.
Current thread:
- Re: Someones being naughty again..., (continued)
- Re: Someones being naughty again... Marc Slemko (Mar 13)
- Re: Someones being naughty again... Alec H. Peterson (Mar 14)
- Re: Someones being naughty again... Marc Slemko (Mar 14)
- Re: Someones being naughty again... Alec H. Peterson (Mar 15)
- Re: [nanog] Re: Someones being naughty again... S.T.Balbach (Mar 14)
- Re: [nanog] Re: Someones being naughty again... Dean Anderson (Mar 14)
- Re: Someones being naughty again... Marc Hurst (Mar 14)
- Re: Someones being naughty again... Daniel Reed (Mar 14)
- Re: Someones being naughty again... jlixfeld (Mar 15)
- Re: Someones being naughty again... Marc Hurst (Mar 14)
- Re: Someones being naughty again... Fancy Feast (Mar 14)
- Re: Someones being naughty again... Fancy Feast (Mar 15)
- Re: Someones being naughty again... Marc Hurst (Mar 14)