[30138] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC 1918
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Greg A. Woods)
Sun Jul 16 17:17:05 2000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: woods@weird.com (Greg A. Woods)
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007142342470.95155-100000@overlord.e-gerbil.net>
Reply-To: nanog@merit.edu (North America Network Operators Group Mailing List)
Message-Id: <20000716211337.20C2687@proven.weird.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:13:37 -0400 (EDT)
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
[ On Friday, July 14, 2000 at 23:54:11 (-0400), Richard A. Steenbergen wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: RFC 1918
>
> The only real reason to filter 1918 space is if you are afraid there will
> be an IP conflict between something you have numbered in your 1918 space,
> and the responses which could be generated by someone elses 1918 space
> (for example, a dest unreachable coming from someone's 1918 P-t-P sourced
> to something you have an IP for as well).
Though technically you're right, this kind of attitude is exactly the
problem. Everyone should filter all RFC1918 usage on public links,
regardless of whether they themselves use is, or their customers use it,
or not. To not do such filtering is to be a bad neighbour.
Of course the same "good neighbour" policy would suggest that everyone
should *mutually* filter any addresses (src or dst) that are not their
own or their neighbours.
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
