[33101] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Brown)
Fri Dec 29 12:58:39 2000
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:53:42 -0500
From: Andrew Brown <twofsonet@graffiti.com>
To: John Fraizer <nanog@EnterZone.Net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20001229125342.A29733@noc.untraceable.net>
Reply-To: Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0012291248370.22125-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>; from nanog@EnterZone.Net on Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:50:43PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
imho, that just makes bt look even worse. now, instead of using
things they shouldn't, they've got a large "broken" network.
On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:50:43PM -0500, John Fraizer wrote:
>
>
>Block traffic sourced from 1918 space at the borders like all good
>providers should do and it looks more like this:
>
>11 transit1-pos10-3.ilford.ukcore.bt.net (194.74.16.245) 105.436 ms 104.467 ms 110.371 ms
>12 core2-gig3-0.ilford.ukcore.bt.net (194.74.16.111) 109.295 ms 105.359 ms 107.466 ms
>13 core2-pos10-0.bletchley.ukcore.bt.net (62.6.196.221) 107.255 ms 107.344 ms 109.345 ms
>14 vhsaccess1-pos8-0.bletchley.fixed.bt.net (62.6.197.138) 107.308 ms 105.954 ms 111.282 ms
>15 213.120.207.222 (213.120.207.222) 107.333 ms 106.454 ms 105.460 ms
>16 * * *
>17 * * *
>18 213.120.62.61 (213.120.62.61) 106.933 ms 109.007 ms 111.363 ms
>19 * * *
>20 * * *
>21 * * *
>22 * * *
>23 * * *
>24 * * *
>25 * * *
>26 * * *
>27 * * *
>28 * * *
>29 * * *
>30 * * *
>
>
>
>---
>John Fraizer
>EnterZone, Inc
>
>
>
>On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Andrew Brown wrote:
>
>>
>> speaking of rfc1918 addresses...one of my machines at home got poked
>> at, so i did the usual thing which was perhaps waste about five
>> minutes poking back from some place else if i feel like it. what i
>> saw piqued my interest:
>>
>> % traceroute -f12 213.123.76.29
>> traceroute to 213.123.76.29 (213.123.76.29), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
>> 12 core1-pos10-0.bletchley.ukcore.bt.net (62.6.196.217) 349.804 ms 391.793 ms 354.819 ms
>> 13 vhsaccess1-pos7-0.bletchley.fixed.bt.net (62.6.197.134) 472.775 ms 413.810 ms 429.770 ms
>> 14 213.120.207.218 (213.120.207.218) 288.801 ms 285.806 ms 376.831 ms
>> 15 172.16.93.125 (172.16.93.125) 348.788 ms 383.831 ms 274.826 ms
>> 16 172.16.93.49 (172.16.93.49) 284.805 ms 426.828 ms 869.717 ms
>> 17 172.16.93.37 (172.16.93.37) 243.793 ms 386.818 ms 394.838 ms
>> 18 172.16.93.1 (172.16.93.1) 399.757 ms 281.851 ms 324.813 ms
>> 19 192.168.250.17 (192.168.250.17) 279.814 ms 315.717 ms 241.842 ms
>> 20 213.123.76.29 (213.123.76.29) 241.812 ms 247.859 ms 193.838 ms
>>
>> now i've seen people using 10.x.x.x addresses for the endpoints of the
>> occasional serial link, but this makes it look like most of british
>> telecom's backbone uses private addressing. i wonder what would
>> happen to them if someone were to leak a route into them for those
>> addresses?
>>
>> --
>> |-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
>> codewarrior@daemon.org * "ah! i see you have the internet
>> twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
>> andrew@crossbar.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."
>>
>
--
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org * "ah! i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."
