Re: Bogon list

["Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () opaltelecom co uk>]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote:

> In the referenced message, Sean M. Doran said:
> > Basically, arguing that the routing system should carry around
> > even more information is backwards.  It should carry less.  
> > If IXes need numbers at all (why???) then use RFC 1918 addresses
> > and choose one of the approaches above to deal with questions
> > about why 1918 addresses result in "messy traceroutes."
> >
> > Fewer routes, less address consumption, tastes great, less filling.
> >
> >     Sean.
>
> Do you:
> 1) Not believe in PMTU-D

RFC1918 does not break path-mtu, filtering it does tho.. 

> 2) Not believe in filtering RFC1918 sourced traffic at enterprise boundaries
> (of which an exchange would be a boundary)

What for? You'll find many more much more mailicious packets coming from
legit routable address space.

> 3) Not believe packet-passing devices have legitimate needs in contacting
> hosts, even if hosts don't have legitimate needs for contacting them? (a
> superset of 1, above)
> 4) All or some of the above?
>
> I would love if RFC1918 were adhered to such that L3 packet-passing devices
> either weren't numbered out of those blocks, or allowed what juniper allows
> with the ability to select the ip address with which packets sourced by
> the L3 packet-passing device sent traffic (other than primary ip on
> destination interface). The latter would permit intra-enterprise use
> of RFC1918 addresses, while still conforming with RFC1918. Failing that,
> use of RFC1918 addresses in places where inter-provider packets get
> RFC1918 sources, is a violation of RFC1918.

For p2p you can use unnumbered.. it wont work on exchanges but i agree
they shouldnt be rfc1918. 

Steve

> In any event, exchanges are inter-enterprise, and shouldn't be RFC1918.