[34955] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: rfc 1918?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Feb 22 16:23:50 2001
Message-Id: <200102222118.f1MLIbk30149@foo-bar-baz.cc.vt.edu>
To: John Hawkinson <jhawk@bbnplanet.com>
Cc: Chris Davis <chris.davis@computerjobs.com>,
"'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:12:16 EST."
<20010222161216.V23712@jhawk-foo.bbnplanet.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-1272308576P";
micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:18:36 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_-1272308576P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:12:16 EST, John Hawkinson said:
> There are good reasons to want to get those packets (traceroutes from
> people who have numbered their networks in rfc1918 networks, f'rinstance).
The original note specifically showed them as being TCP packets from
a 10.x.x.x address going to port 80. Does that qualify as a good reason?
> Not everyone agrees whether it is better to filter or not to filter,
> but there are good arguments on both sides.
Does anybody in the house think that these packets actually have a snowball's
chance in Hades of getting a reply back sucessfully?
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech
--==_Exmh_-1272308576P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
Comment: Exmh version 2.2 06/16/2000
iQA/AwUBOpWCLHAt5Vm009ewEQJ2kwCfZpztwlpK2Xf5CwfqMcAIedXL8soAoPSZ
ZLv6fnfjijIAxUwee00a0h9S
=eFa4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_-1272308576P--
