[33174] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Hawkinson)
Mon Jan 1 10:59:47 2001
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 10:57:50 -0500
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@bbnplanet.com>
To: John Fraizer <nanog@EnterZone.Net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010101105750.F14848@jhawk-foo.bbnplanet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101010314190.4565-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>; from nanog@EnterZone.Net on Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 03:27:25AM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> OK. Poll time:
This is an extremely poor way to run a poll. You should at least specify
whether you want your answers in private email or a public reply to the
list. Further, it'd be wise to start the subject line with POLL: or
something so the people who have punted the (mostly useless) thread
will pay attention. Also, it's appropriate to give time bounds for your
poll.
> Who lets 1918 space into and/or out of their borders? If you are and
> won't admit it, I'm sure that someone will point you out. If you aren't
> (and IMHO you're wise for not doing so) please chime in and show your
> HIGH level of clue!
You've just highly biased the selection by effectively insulting respondants
in the the affirmative. Poll results are now useless, congratulations.
You've now taken NANOG back to the usual sort of uselessness.
Thank you.
--jhawk
(who values a return packet from a bogus IP address to help him debug a
problem immensely, and sees filtering such data as Not Going To Help
With The Social Problem Anyway, not that anyone has tried to organize
or summarize this discussion in a concise fashion, hence the current
free-for-all. It's difficult not to respond with ad hominem four-letter
denegrations of individuals, but somehow I resist.)
