nanog mailing list archives
Re: rfc 1918?
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk () bbnplanet com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:22:07 -0500
There are good reasons to want to get those packets (traceroutes from people who have numbered their networks in rfc1918 networks, f'rinstance).The original note specifically showed them as being TCP packets from a 10.x.x.x address going to port 80. Does that qualify as a good reason?
Err, no, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to filter rfc1918 packets based on specific protocols.
Not everyone agrees whether it is better to filter or not to filter, but there are good arguments on both sides.Does anybody in the house think that these packets actually have a snowball's chance in Hades of getting a reply back sucessfully?
No, but that's really a thoroughly orthogonal question. --jhawk
Current thread:
- rfc 1918? Chris Davis (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? John Hawkinson (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? John Hawkinson (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? John Hawkinson (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- RE: rfc 1918? Mark Radabaugh (Feb 24)
- RE: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] RE: rfc 1918? Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- RE: [NANOG] RE: rfc 1918? Mark Radabaugh (Feb 24)
- duh (Re: [NANOG] Re: RE: rfc 1918?) Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? John Hawkinson (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)