[34979] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [NANOG] Re: rfc 1918
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pim van Riezen)
Thu Feb 22 19:36:39 2001
In-Reply-To: <200102222349.PAA15903@ndk.shankland.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:21:24 CEST
From: Pim van Riezen <pi@vuurwerk.nl>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <PstOfc.3a95ad04.003f54@localhost>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Jim Shankland <nanog@shankland.org> tapped some keys and produced:
>
> Note that the proposition, "Providers should filter RFC1918-sourced
> packets at the periphery" is a subset of the proposition, "Providers
> should filter at the periphery packets with source addresses not
> explicitly authorized by the provider." I subscribe to the second
> proposition, and hence implicitly to the former. The problem is not the
> stray RFC1918-sourced packet here or there. The problem is that
> the de facto standard is that you can inject packets with arbitrary
> source addresses into the Internet from anywhere. The number of attacks
> that use spoofed source addresses is reason enough to change
> this.
>
> But I'm not holding my breath.
No, let's just wait till National Government Security Comittees decide to
make the decision for us for interests of National Cyber Security against
cyber-terrorism attack from the Bin Laden Playstation 2 attack clusters.
Shitty situation, ranting against a wall. It's like demanding Microsoft
software to be stable. Perhaps I should pick up religion as a hobby.
Pi
--
conf t
no ip-directed marketing drivel
^Z
wr mem
