North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
Block traffic sourced from 1918 space at the borders like all good providers should do and it looks more like this: 11 transit1-pos10-3.ilford.ukcore.bt.net (194.74.16.245) 105.436 ms 104.467 ms 110.371 ms 12 core2-gig3-0.ilford.ukcore.bt.net (194.74.16.111) 109.295 ms 105.359 ms 107.466 ms 13 core2-pos10-0.bletchley.ukcore.bt.net (62.6.196.221) 107.255 ms 107.344 ms 109.345 ms 14 vhsaccess1-pos8-0.bletchley.fixed.bt.net (62.6.197.138) 107.308 ms 105.954 ms 111.282 ms 15 213.120.207.222 (213.120.207.222) 107.333 ms 106.454 ms 105.460 ms 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 213.120.62.61 (213.120.62.61) 106.933 ms 109.007 ms 111.363 ms 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * * --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Andrew Brown wrote: > > speaking of rfc1918 addresses...one of my machines at home got poked > at, so i did the usual thing which was perhaps waste about five > minutes poking back from some place else if i feel like it. what i > saw piqued my interest: > > % traceroute -f12 213.123.76.29 > traceroute to 213.123.76.29 (213.123.76.29), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 12 core1-pos10-0.bletchley.ukcore.bt.net (62.6.196.217) 349.804 ms 391.793 ms 354.819 ms > 13 vhsaccess1-pos7-0.bletchley.fixed.bt.net (62.6.197.134) 472.775 ms 413.810 ms 429.770 ms > 14 213.120.207.218 (213.120.207.218) 288.801 ms 285.806 ms 376.831 ms > 15 172.16.93.125 (172.16.93.125) 348.788 ms 383.831 ms 274.826 ms > 16 172.16.93.49 (172.16.93.49) 284.805 ms 426.828 ms 869.717 ms > 17 172.16.93.37 (172.16.93.37) 243.793 ms 386.818 ms 394.838 ms > 18 172.16.93.1 (172.16.93.1) 399.757 ms 281.851 ms 324.813 ms > 19 192.168.250.17 (192.168.250.17) 279.814 ms 315.717 ms 241.842 ms > 20 213.123.76.29 (213.123.76.29) 241.812 ms 247.859 ms 193.838 ms > > now i've seen people using 10.x.x.x addresses for the endpoints of the > occasional serial link, but this makes it look like most of british > telecom's backbone uses private addressing. i wonder what would > happen to them if someone were to leak a route into them for those > addresses? > > -- > |-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----| > [email protected] * "ah! i see you have the internet > [email protected] (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!" > [email protected] * "information is power -- share the wealth." >
|