nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
From: Stephen Stuart <stuart () mfnx net>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:03:22 -0800
Blocking source-routed packets at the borders will stop this in short order, except for those of you who peer with people who require "loose source routing". (Randy, I believe it was Verio that required this, am I mistaken?)
Source-routing has more value to me as a debugging measure than RFC1918 addressing has as a security measure. Perhaps a customer network can derive some security from blocking source-routed packets, though. Stephen
Current thread:
- Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?, (continued)
- Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? John Fraizer (Dec 31)
- Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? Bill Woodcock (Dec 31)
- Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? Randy Bush (Dec 31)
- Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? Mark Mentovai (Dec 31)
- Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? Randy Bush (Dec 31)
- Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? Andrew Brown (Dec 31)
- Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? John Hawkinson (Dec 31)
- Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? Dana Hudes (Dec 31)
- Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? Stephen Stuart (Dec 31)
- Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? Andrew Brown (Dec 31)
- Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? Stephen Stuart (Dec 31)
- RE: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? Jason Lewis (Dec 31)
- Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? Stephen Stuart (Dec 31)
- RE: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? Bill Woodcock (Dec 31)
- Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? Adam Rothschild (Dec 30)
- Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN? Steve Sobol (Dec 30)