North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [NANOG] Re: rfc 1918
Jim Shankland <[email protected]> tapped some keys and produced: > > Note that the proposition, "Providers should filter RFC1918-sourced > packets at the periphery" is a subset of the proposition, "Providers > should filter at the periphery packets with source addresses not > explicitly authorized by the provider." I subscribe to the second > proposition, and hence implicitly to the former. The problem is not the > stray RFC1918-sourced packet here or there. The problem is that > the de facto standard is that you can inject packets with arbitrary > source addresses into the Internet from anywhere. The number of attacks > that use spoofed source addresses is reason enough to change > this. > > But I'm not holding my breath. No, let's just wait till National Government Security Comittees decide to make the decision for us for interests of National Cyber Security against cyber-terrorism attack from the Bin Laden Playstation 2 attack clusters. Shitty situation, ranting against a wall. It's like demanding Microsoft software to be stable. Perhaps I should pick up religion as a hobby. Pi -- conf t no ip-directed marketing drivel ^Z wr mem
|