North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?

  • From: Andrew Brown
  • Date: Fri Dec 29 13:01:29 2000 
imho, that just makes bt look even worse.  now, instead of using
things they shouldn't, they've got a large "broken" network.

On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:50:43PM -0500, John Fraizer wrote:
>
>
>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."
>> 
>

-- 
|-----< "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."