North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: icmp rpf
[Can we all have a moment of silence for a useful, interesting, and on-topic post?]
On Sep 24, 2006, at 5:59 PM, Mark Kent wrote:
A smaller North American network provider, with a modest NorthWho said either was?
First: Your network, your rules. Don't expect others to play by your rules.
But more importantly, there is nothing that says two perfectly reasonable, rational "rules" cannot create a problem when intersecting in interesting ways.
But if forced, I'd say Small.Net gets my vote for needing correction. I see less "wrongness" in a networking running what is essentially loose RPF than a network who expects supposedly bogon- sourced packets to be forwarded. (One could argue that non-announced space is bogus.)
Just remember, I would only say that if pushed. Normally I would say neither is wrong.
Please note that we're not talking about RFC1918 space, or reserved IPIn such an instance, I would suggest Big.Net will have far, far larger problems than whether pings get returned from prefixes it can't reach anyway.