nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all)
From: Lukas Tribus <lukas () ltri eu>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 13:35:57 +0100
The think that you have to remember to do is to exclude locally significant (100.64/10, RFC 1918, et al.) from those filters /or/ account for them in another way.
You know all this if you are the network operator. If you are the customer of the ISP, let's say a datacenter/cloud customer and you are deploying Web or Mailservices, you have no idea whether this ISP will route RFC6598 traffic to you or not and you certainly will not get informed by the ISP if that ever changes. You only know about this once you are dropping production traffic from clients in 100.64/10 and a trouble ticket has found it's way to you ("residential customers of the same ISP can't reach your cloud services"). That is why RFC6598 is suggesting to drop this traffic on autonomous system borders. The RFC is not suggesting to drop this traffic elsewhere.
Bogons is just a list of IPs that shouldn't be on the open Internet.
Which, for RFC6598 is misleading because RFC6598 space is used within (but not beyond) ISP networks. "The internet" includes ISP networks.
The Team Cymru bogon's list is a tool and like all tools, it can be mis-used and become a foot gun.
Which is why proper description, documentation and education is important. Thanks, Lukas
Current thread:
- Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all), (continued)
- Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) Rabbi Rob Thomas (Mar 07)
- Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) Lukas Tribus (Mar 08)
- Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) Tom Beecher (Mar 08)
- Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) William Herrin (Mar 07)
- Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) Lukas Tribus (Mar 08)
- Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) Grant Taylor via NANOG (Mar 08)
- RE: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) Travis Garrison (Mar 08)
- Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) William Herrin (Mar 08)
- Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) Mark Andrews (Mar 08)
- Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) Grant Taylor via NANOG (Mar 07)
- Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) Lukas Tribus (Mar 08)
- Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) Victor Kuarsingh (Mar 08)
- Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) Grant Taylor via NANOG (Mar 08)
- Message not available
- Re: Re[2]: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) Lukas Tribus (Mar 08)
- Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) Rabbi Rob Thomas (Mar 19)