nanog mailing list archives
Re: rfc 1918?
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () opaltelecom co uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 22:40:11 +0000 (GMT)
No John, there are exactly zero reasons, good or otherwise, for allowing any traffic with RFC-1918 source addresses to traverse any part of the public Internet. Period! :-)
Altho Path MTU from RFC1918 P2P links will arrive and if you block them you'll find strange things occur on transfering data so you cant say nothing should come on 1918 space.
That's not a good reason. Nobody should be generating public traffic from those addresses, "making them work" is not an Internet-friendly decision.
I agree, altho a lot of people do use 1918 for their p2p.
The sooner RFC-1918-sourced packets get filtered (i.e. the closer to
until the previous item is fixed tho you'll break things if you do this. Steve
Current thread:
- Re: rfc 1918?, (continued)
- 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? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)
- RE: rfc 1918? Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Ariel Biener (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Andrew Brown (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Shawn McMahon (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Adrian Chadd (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)