[15666] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Someones being naughty again...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fancy Feast)
Sat Mar 14 13:25:13 1998
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 13:19:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Fancy Feast <alex@sprint.net>
To: Marc Hurst <mhurst@fastlane.ca>
cc: jlixfeld@idirect.ca, Pat Darisme <pat@noc.home.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.980314130220.9810A-100000@fastlane.ca>
All 10.x.x.x networks should be filtered by all competent upstreams.
The same goes for 127 and 224 ;)
is NAT that hard to configure?
Alex
On Sat, 14 Mar 1998, Marc Hurst wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 14 Mar 1998 jlixfeld@idirect.ca wrote:
>
> > No, you should definetly not be able to ping it. Where are you in
> > respect to home.net? If you are not directly connected to home.net and if
> > you can ping that IP, then @home is trying to advertise 10.0.184.0 to
> > their upstreams and they are accepting those advertisments. If you are
> > on home.net then you will be able to see them. That is definetly wrong
> > though! I can see if you use 10.x net for un-advertised touch-down nets
> > between two routers, but you should definetly not be able to ping them
> > from afar.
> >
>
> No, I'm definitely not part of the @home net. I'm coming in off a dial-up
> of an independant ISP in Toronto (UUnet/Sprint feeds I believe...).
>
> M.
>
