[33159] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Hawkinson)
Mon Jan 1 01:34:12 2001
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 01:30:03 -0500
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@bbnplanet.com>
To: Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010101013003.E14848@jhawk-foo.bbnplanet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20001231235213.A12525@noc.untraceable.net>; from twofsonet@graffiti.com on Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 11:52:13PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I said:
> >Nevertheless, the operational reality is that having a traceroute that
> >shows RFC1918 addresses is more useful than a traceroute that shows
> >* * *, and therefore I suspect most operators will continue to permit
> >RFC1918 addresses into their networks as long as a few questionable
> >individuals use them to source traffic.
>
> i think it's only useful to show that (a) something's there
Yes, and that's sufficient justification for me. I don't particularly
like traffic filters.
--jhawk
