nanog mailing list archives
RE: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all)
From: Travis Garrison <tgarrison () netviscom com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 21:24:57 +0000
On 3/8/23 5:35 AM, Lukas Tribus wrote:Perhaps I should have started this topic with a very specific example: - ISP A has a residential customer "Bob" in RFC6598 space - ISP A CGNATs Bob if the destination is beyond it's own IP space - ISP A doesn't CGNAT if the destination is within its IP space (as explained in the OP, this means reducing state and logging) - ISP A has a cloud customer "Alice" running mail/webservers, which is of course using public IP address space - when Bob access Alice's mail/webserver, the source IP will show RFC6598 addressing - if Alice filters RFC6598, Bob can't connect - Alice should not drop RFC6598, it should threat RFC6598 just like every other public IP subnetI argue that Alice should expect to not receive any traffic from non-globally routed IPs UNLESS her cloud provider has informed her that she should expect them.
I>'d say that they shouldn't send them to her without her acknowledgement
~> consent to receive them.
Exactly We use CGNAT in our network unfortunately. We skip CGNAT for internal resources only, to reduce logging, load, etc. but all outbound and/or customer to customer traffic goes through the CGNAT. Only public IP addresses are allowed to communicate between customers. Travis
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) Tom Beecher (Mar 07)
- 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 07)
- Re: RFC6598 100.64/10: to bogon or not to bogon (team-cymru et all) Tom Beecher (Mar 07)
- 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) Lukas Tribus (Mar 07)
- 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)