nanog mailing list archives
Time to update RFC1912? (was Re: Top AS Offenders causing RFC-1918 DNS traffic)
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 21:29:36 -0400 (EDT)
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, John M. Brown wrote:
I would call these orgs, speak to their net people and we would mitigate by having them become authoratative for RFC1918.in-addr.arpa.
Is it time to update RFC 1912? The original author has noted several additional errors, including the ommission of 1918 addresses. Although I guess since 1918 was published after 1912, that isn't surprising. http://www.visi.com/~barr/rfc1912-errors.html A published RFC is easier to reference when trying to get people to change their behavior than a personal web site. I remember configuring my DNS servers many, many years ago to sink 0, 127, 255 and RFC1918 addresses. But I can't remember what authority I used to justify it. Most DNS servers sink 127.in-addr.arpa, probably because the default configuration and just about every DNS book published shows it in the configuration file. Sinking the other "well-known" bogons seems to rely on word of mouth.
Current thread:
- Top AS Offenders causing RFC-1918 DNS traffic John M. Brown (Sep 14)
- Re: Top AS Offenders causing RFC-1918 DNS traffic Peter Salus (Sep 14)
- Re: Top AS Offenders causing RFC-1918 DNS traffic John M. Brown (Sep 14)
- Re: Top AS Offenders causing RFC-1918 DNS traffic Sean Donelan (Sep 14)
- Re: Top AS Offenders causing RFC-1918 DNS traffic Paul Vixie (Sep 15)
- RE: Top AS Offenders causing RFC-1918 DNS traffic Sameer R. Manek (Sep 14)
- Re: Top AS Offenders causing RFC-1918 DNS traffic Henry Yen (Sep 14)
- Re: Top AS Offenders causing RFC-1918 DNS traffic John M. Brown (Sep 14)
- Time to update RFC1912? (was Re: Top AS Offenders causing RFC-1918 DNS traffic) Sean Donelan (Sep 14)
- Re: Top AS Offenders causing RFC-1918 DNS traffic Peter Salus (Sep 14)