nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC 1918
From: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall () ehsco com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 17:06:19 -0700
"Richard A. Steenbergen" wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Eric A. Hall wrote:When ISPs choose to mark their packets with Internet-illegal addresses, they are contributing to these problems. Sorry, but you're not supposed to be using these addresses anyway.This is utterly stupid. You can use these addresses any way you see fit, you can source packets from them if you'd like, and they are as valid as any other address to use and be "on the internet".
What's dumber? a) Filtering illegal packets from entering your network because they use your internal address range, because they are classed unroutable and should never appear on that interface, or both -or- b) Sending packets that you KNOW will be dropped or filtered by a good portion of their intended recipients. Let's try to do this without the name calling. Thanks. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Current thread:
- Re: RFC 1918, (continued)
- Re: RFC 1918 Greg A. Woods (Jul 16)
- Re: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 Stephen Kowalchuk (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 ww (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 Eric A. Hall (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 ww (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 Scott McGrath (Jul 18)
- Re: RFC 1918 Stephen Kowalchuk (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 ww (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 Eric A. Hall (Jul 18)
- Filtering (was Re: RFC 1918) Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 18)
- Re: Filtering (was Re: RFC 1918) Paul Vixie (Jul 19)
- Re: RFC 1918 Eric A. Hall (Jul 18)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bill Fumerola (Jul 18)
- Re: RFC 1918 Shawn McMahon (Jul 19)