North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Bogon list
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote: > > In the referenced message, Sean M. Doran said: > > Basically, arguing that the routing system should carry around > > even more information is backwards. It should carry less. > > If IXes need numbers at all (why???) then use RFC 1918 addresses > > and choose one of the approaches above to deal with questions > > about why 1918 addresses result in "messy traceroutes." > > > > Fewer routes, less address consumption, tastes great, less filling. > > > > Sean. > > Do you: > 1) Not believe in PMTU-D RFC1918 does not break path-mtu, filtering it does tho.. > 2) Not believe in filtering RFC1918 sourced traffic at enterprise boundaries > (of which an exchange would be a boundary) What for? You'll find many more much more mailicious packets coming from legit routable address space. > 3) Not believe packet-passing devices have legitimate needs in contacting > hosts, even if hosts don't have legitimate needs for contacting them? (a > superset of 1, above) > 4) All or some of the above? > > I would love if RFC1918 were adhered to such that L3 packet-passing devices > either weren't numbered out of those blocks, or allowed what juniper allows > with the ability to select the ip address with which packets sourced by > the L3 packet-passing device sent traffic (other than primary ip on > destination interface). The latter would permit intra-enterprise use > of RFC1918 addresses, while still conforming with RFC1918. Failing that, > use of RFC1918 addresses in places where inter-provider packets get > RFC1918 sources, is a violation of RFC1918. For p2p you can use unnumbered.. it wont work on exchanges but i agree they shouldnt be rfc1918. Steve > > In any event, exchanges are inter-enterprise, and shouldn't be RFC1918. > >
|