nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC 1918
From: Stephen Kowalchuk <skowalchuk () diamonex com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:05:09 -0400
Public IP address allocation from ARIN is a totally different matter. My point is that filtering RFC 1918 addresses at your network's borders is the right thing to do for a number of reasons. IMHO using RFC 1918 addresses on your backbone routers (or any other public device) for anything other than emergency or truly temporary use is a recipe for disaster. My $0.02. ww () shadowfax styx org wrote: <snip>
Imagine that you inherit a network where RFC1918 addresses are used ...
</snip> -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Kowalchuk skowalchuk () diamonex com Diamonex, Incorporated --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- Re: RFC 1918, (continued)
- Re: RFC 1918 Michael Shields (Jul 14)
- RE: RFC 1918 rdobbins (Jul 16)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bohdan Tashchuk (Jul 16)
- Re: RFC 1918 Greg A. Woods (Jul 16)
- Re: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 Stephen Kowalchuk (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 ww (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 Eric A. Hall (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 ww (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 Scott McGrath (Jul 18)
- Re: RFC 1918 Stephen Kowalchuk (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 ww (Jul 17)
- Re: RFC 1918 Eric A. Hall (Jul 18)
- Filtering (was Re: RFC 1918) Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 18)
- Re: Filtering (was Re: RFC 1918) Paul Vixie (Jul 19)
- Re: RFC 1918 Eric A. Hall (Jul 18)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bill Fumerola (Jul 18)
- Re: RFC 1918 Shawn McMahon (Jul 19)