Re: [NANOG] RE: rfc 1918?

[Pim van Riezen <pi () vuurwerk nl>]

woods () weird com (Greg A. Woods) tapped some keys and produced:

> In practical terms I suppose it also depends on just exactly what 
> filtering technology you've deployed, and just exactly how close it is 
> to being overloaded.  If you are already pushing your router's CPU too 
> hard (and if your filters are done by your router's CPU rather than an 
> ASIC) then obviously reducing your filter load will be in your own best 
> interests and not filtering destination addresses against RFC-1918 will 
> be one relatively benign way of reducing the filter load.  However if 
> your router's CPU is only partially utilised now (even if you push your 
> pipe to capacity), then adding such destination filters won't hurt 
> anyone.

Would routing them to Null0 not be more optimal?

Pi

-- 
conf t
no ip-directed marketing drivel
^Z
wr mem