nanog mailing list archives
Re: Please verify RFC1918 filters
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:44:11 -0500
vijay gill wrote:
Wouldnt 172.15.255.254 and 172.32.0.1 do better at helping to nail down improper filter issues?On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 03:13:07PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:y'all might give us something pingable in that space so we can do a primitive and incomplete test in a simple fashion. randytry 172.128.1.1 /vijay
Wont above miss detecting of 172.0.0.0 0.15-127.255.255 172.16.0.0 0.31-63.255.255 while it will catch only 172.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 (disregarding other possible permutations) ? Also perhaps a traceroute http web site there would be nice also. Perhaps that is all more trouble than its worth.....
Current thread:
- Please verify RFC1918 filters vijay gill (Mar 22)
- Re: Please verify RFC1918 filters Randy Bush (Mar 22)
- Re: Please verify RFC1918 filters Suresh Ramasubramanian (Mar 22)
- Re: Please verify RFC1918 filters Jon Lewis (Mar 23)
- Re: Please verify RFC1918 filters vijay gill (Mar 24)
- Re: Please verify RFC1918 filters Randy Bush (Mar 24)
- Re: Please verify RFC1918 filters Joe Maimon (Mar 27)
- Re: Please verify RFC1918 filters Suresh Ramasubramanian (Mar 22)
- Re: Please verify RFC1918 filters Randy Bush (Mar 22)