North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
> This is one of the benchmarks of cluelessness. The other is that the > addresses don't have reverse DNS. Perhaps they do resolve interally to BT, it's just that your resolver can't get anything useful via the normal channels: [email protected]% dig @a.root-servers.net 16.172.in-addr.arpa ns ; <<>> DiG 8.2 <<>> @a.root-servers.net 16.172.in-addr.arpa ns ; (1 server found) ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6 ;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; 16.172.in-addr.arpa, type = NS, class = IN ;; ANSWER SECTION: 16.172.in-addr.arpa. 6D IN NS BLACKHOLE.ISI.EDU. 16.172.in-addr.arpa. 6D IN NS BLACKHOLE.EP.NET. ;; Total query time: 108 msec ;; FROM: sofos.tcb.net to SERVER: a.root-servers.net 188.8.131.52 ;; WHEN: Fri Dec 29 11:42:12 2000 ;; MSG SIZE sent: 37 rcvd: 98 Though I agree that using reserved address space in this manner is [usually] a bad idea, I think we [NANOG] have been through this dicussion more than a few times in this past. -danny