|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: rfc 1918?
"Greg A. Woods" wrote: > Either people have to really use RFC-1918 private address space properly > and ensure it never ever leaks (and maybe even some core locations have > to start filtering it where they can just to provide the helpful service > of helping correct other people's mistakes), or we have to give up on > using common private address space completely. When providers treat I can already hear the counterpoint on this one: "Transit providers are to provide transit only. It is not up to backbone operators to filter traffic in order to correct their customers'/peers' mistakes." Remember that long thread from a few months back? I completely agree with you on the point that 1918 addresses should never be seen outside of the internal networks they are used on; however, if we start having transit providers filter to correct their downstreams' lack of such, then those providers end up acting as either Mommy (to clean up after us) or Big Brother (to keep an eye on us), and I'm pretty sure the last thing anybody wants is anything resembling high-level "policing" of the Net. The best, and possibly the only workable, solution to this problem is for people to stop being lazy and start being responsible. <pause for laughter at the previous comment> -- Scott Francis [email protected] [work:] v i r t u a l i s . c o m [email protected] [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t PGP fingerprint 7ABF E2E9 CD54 A1A8 804D 179A 8802 0FBA CB33 CCA7 illum oportet crescere me autem minui
|