|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: RFC1918 conformance
> > ! Deny martian routes
> > ! 1st and last classical B and C nets (guard nets).
> > access-list 180 deny ip 128.0.0.0 0.0.255.255 255.255.0.0 0.0.255.255
> > access-list 180 deny ip 191.255.0.0 0.0.255.255 255.255.0.0 0.0.255.255
> > access-list 180 deny ip 192.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255
> > access-list 180 deny ip 223.255.255.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255
>
> In a classless environment, these prefixes are legitimate.
> Correct behaviour is now known for these subnets and so I
> wonder why you still have them in your standard list.
They sure look reserved to me:
note% whois RESERVED
IANA (RESERVED-1) RESERVED 0.0.0.0
IANA (RESERVED-3) RESERVED 128.0.0.0
IANA (RESERVED-4) RESERVED 191.255.0.0
IANA (RESERVED-5) RESERVED 223.255.255.0
IANA (RESERVED-7) Reserved 64.0.0.0 - 95.0.0.0
IANA (RESERVED-8) Reserved 96.0.0.0 - 126.0.0.0
Actually it looks like I should add the top 1/2 of the old A space as well.
It also looks like someone did something really silly with 192.0.0/24:
note% whois 192.0.0
IANA (NET-ROOT-NS-LAB)
c/o Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1001
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
Netname: ROOT-NS-LAB
Netnumber: 192.0.0.0
Coordinator:
Manning, Bill (WM110) [email protected]
310-322-8102
Domain System inverse mapping provided by:
ORB.ISI.EDU 128.9.160.66
NS.ISI.EDU 128.9.128.127
Record last updated on 01-Jul-96.
This idea looks really dumb, and since my >/24 filter blocks these
in any case, I see no reason to listen to silly people to unblock
this /24.
Poking a bit further at this, it looks like 192.0/16 is all reserved
as well:
Netname: RESERVED-192
Netblock: 192.0.0.0 - 192.0.255.0
Humm, more bogons to add to my filter?
[email protected] (Andrew Partan)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|