nanog mailing list archives

Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons


From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 21:08:59 -0500


On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 14:22:37 +0000 (GMT)
"Chris L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () verizonbusiness com> wrote:


On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Jon Lewis wrote:

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Eric Ortega wrote:

I'd like to thank the group for the responses and help with this
issue. I find it ironic that Randy's study actually uses 96 space.

The amazing/sad thing is that people have been facing and fixing
the same problem for more than 4 years.  How many times does a
network have to fix their static bogon filters before coming to the
realization that those filters are a bad idea?

So, where are static bogon filters appropriate? (loaded question
perhaps) I ask because just about every 'security expert' and
'security whitepaper' or 'security suggestions' has some portion that
speaks to "why it's a grand idea to have acl-lines/firewall-policy tp
block 'bogon' ip space" (for some definition of 'bogon' of course).

Well, not all of us advocate that; see
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/2006-01/msg00150.html  



                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb


Current thread: