nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC1918 conformance
From: bmanning () ISI EDU (Bill Manning)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:16:21 -0800 (PST)
My standard in & out route filters are attached. Everyone should use something like this. --asp () partan com (Andrew Partan) ! Deny martian routes ! 1st and last classical B and C nets (guard nets). access-list 180 deny ip 128.0.0.0 0.0.255.255 255.255.0.0 0.0.255.255 access-list 180 deny ip 191.255.0.0 0.0.255.255 255.255.0.0 0.0.255.255 access-list 180 deny ip 192.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 access-list 180 deny ip 223.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255
In a classless environment, these prefixes are legitimate. Correct behaviour is now known for these subnets and so I wonder why you still have them in your standard list. -- --bill - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- RFC1918 conformance Pierre Thibaudeau (Feb 10)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 10)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Bill Manning (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Tony Bates (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Alex P. Rudnev (Feb 11)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Jeffrey C. Ollie (Feb 11)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Alex P. Rudnev (Feb 12)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Dana Hudes (Feb 12)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Alex P. Rudnev (Feb 13)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Jeffrey C. Ollie (Feb 13)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Bill Manning (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 10)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Tony Bates (Feb 17)