nanog mailing list archives
re: rfc1918 ignorant
From: Dave Temkin <dave () ordinaryworld com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:59:18 -0400 (EDT)
Is this really an issue? So long as they're not advertising the space I see no issue with routing traffic through a 10. network as transit. If you have no reason to reach their router directly (and after Cisco's last exploit, I'd think no one would want anyone to reach their router directly :-) ), what's the harm done? RFC1918 merely states that it shouldn't be routed on the global internet, not that it can't be used for transit space. <---------------------------> Is there a site to "report" networks/isps that still leak rfc1918 space? By leaking I not only mean "don't filter", but actually _use_ in their network? If someone is keeping a list, feel free to add ServerBeach.com. All traceroutes to servers housed there, pass by 10.10.10.3. traceroute to www.serverbeach.com ... 20. 64-132-228-70.gen.twtelecom.net 21. 10.10.10.3 22. 66.139.72.12 Kind Regards, Frank Louwers -- Openminds bvba www.openminds.be Tweebruggenstraat 16 - 9000 Gent - Belgium -- David Temkin
Current thread:
- rfc1918 ignorant Frank Louwers (Jul 23)
- Re: rfc1918 ignorant David Lesher (Jul 23)
- Re: rfc1918 ignorant Vinny Abello (Jul 23)
- Re: rfc1918 ignorant Haesu (Jul 23)
- Re: rfc1918 ignorant Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) (Jul 23)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- re: rfc1918 ignorant Dave Temkin (Jul 23)
- re: rfc1918 ignorant variable (Jul 23)
- source filtering (Re: rfc1918 ignorant) Jared Mauch (Jul 23)
- Re: source filtering (Re: rfc1918 ignorant) variable (Jul 24)
- Re: source filtering (Re: rfc1918 ignorant) Jared Mauch (Jul 24)
- re: rfc1918 ignorant variable (Jul 23)
- RE: rfc1918 ignorant David Schwartz (Jul 23)
- RE: rfc1918 ignorant Dave Temkin (Jul 23)
- Re: rfc1918 ignorant Lyndon Nerenberg (Jul 23)
- Re: rfc1918 ignorant Dave Temkin (Jul 23)
- Re: rfc1918 ignorant Lyndon Nerenberg (Jul 23)
- Re: rfc1918 ignorant Kevin Oberman (Jul 23)