[33108] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Danny McPherson)
Fri Dec 29 13:59:07 2000
Message-Id: <200012291845.LAA10441@tcb.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Danny McPherson <danny@ambernetworks.com>
Reply-To: danny@ambernetworks.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:45:50 -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> This is one of the benchmarks of cluelessness. The other is that the
> addresses don't have reverse DNS.
Perhaps they do resolve interally to BT, it's just that
your resolver can't get anything useful via the normal
channels:
danny@sofos% dig @a.root-servers.net 16.172.in-addr.arpa ns
; <<>> DiG 8.2 <<>> @a.root-servers.net 16.172.in-addr.arpa ns
; (1 server found)
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 6
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; 16.172.in-addr.arpa, type = NS, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
16.172.in-addr.arpa. 6D IN NS BLACKHOLE.ISI.EDU.
16.172.in-addr.arpa. 6D IN NS BLACKHOLE.EP.NET.
;; Total query time: 108 msec
;; FROM: sofos.tcb.net to SERVER: a.root-servers.net 198.41.0.4
;; WHEN: Fri Dec 29 11:42:12 2000
;; MSG SIZE sent: 37 rcvd: 98
Though I agree that using reserved address space in this
manner is [usually] a bad idea, I think we [NANOG] have been
through this dicussion more than a few times in this past.
-danny
