nanog mailing list archives
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
From: "Paul G" <paul () rusko us>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:43:29 -0500
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jørgen Hovland" <jorgen () hovland cx> To: "Network.Security" <Network.Security () target com> Cc: <nanog () merit edu> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 7:06 PM Subject: Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
----- Original Message ----- From: "Network.Security" <Network.Security () target com>On 2004-11-09-17:10:02, "Network.Security" <Network.Security () target com> wrote:We receive a disturbingly large amount of traffic sourced from the 1918 space destined for our network coming from one of our normally respectable Tier 1 ISP's (three letter acronym, starts with 'M', ends with 'CI'). This is particularly irritating since we pay for burstable service;
nice
that we are paying for illegitimate traffic to come down our pipes.Hello. I felt I had to write a small comment to this. For the record, we use 1918 address range on several of our public routers meaning you will get legitimate traffic from this address space, atleast from us unless you are filtering it (which is of course all your
decision).
Filtering any type of traffic at all by a transit provider without the possibility to remove these filters _could_ be reason enough for us to terminate the contract with them since we would feel we were not paying
for
real internet connectivity.
funny. you must be talking about a different internet. i hear there have been 'rumours out on the internets [sic]', maybe i'm just behind the times.. <g> all jokes aside, 1918 allows for use of 1918 space in a private network or a 'private internet [sic]' comprised of any such number of private networks as agree to interconnect and cooperate in routing traffic sourced from and destined to said space. it follows that any 1918-sourced traffic you send me is illegitimate. out of curiosity, what kind of 'legitimate traffic', considering i couldn't legitimately reply back, were you speaking of? p
Current thread:
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested, (continued)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested James (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Michael . Dillon (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Jeroen Massar (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 09)
- RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Network.Security (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Adam Rothschild (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Jørgen Hovland (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Randy Bush (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Paul G (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Paul Vixie (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Paul G (Nov 09)
- RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Ray Plzak (Nov 10)
- RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Tony Hain (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Adam Rothschild (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Jørgen Hovland (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Paul G (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Jørgen Hovland (Nov 09)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Joe Maimon (Nov 10)
- Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 10)