North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: address spoofing
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, Phil Howard wrote: > > Greg A. Woods wrote: > > > my upstream provider to use RFC1918 on inter-router links, but they do > > anyway. I'd like them to filter those addresses too, but they won't. > > I do agree they should be filtered out. > > At what point should we draw the line and say who can, and who cannot, > use RFC1918 addresses on links? My first thought would be any link over > which traffic from more than one AS transits, or between AS's, should > always be fully routable. Any better ideas? Somewhere along the lines of this thread, the point has been lost (IMHO). If a provider uses 1918 addresses on internal links, who cares? And when you say 'filter' them, do you mean filter them in routing announcements, or filter any traffic to/from that ips? If the former, than thats good, you should do that; it should be part of your martian filters. If the latter, thats fine too, but traceroutes will '*' on those hops. But, once again, who cares? Conservation of IP space is good at worst. > > won't be using precious unique IPs and feel the pressure to use RFC1918 > > numbers instead). I'm certainly no expert at this, but from the outside > > I've seen it done quite successfully. It sure cuts down on the hop > > count visible from traceroute too! Using 1918 space will have no bearing on hop count or visibility of the hop. Thats rediculous. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Atheism is a non-prophet organization. I route, therefore I am. Alex Rubenstein, [email protected], KC2BUO, ISP/C Charter Member Father of the Network and Head Bottle-Washer Net Access Corporation, 9 Mt. Pleasant Tpk., Denville, NJ 07834 Don't choose a spineless ISP; we have more backbone! http://www.nac.net -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
|