[35124] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 64.0.0.0/8 etc. [was: Re: BGP Question - how do work around...]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Provo)
Tue Feb 27 12:20:09 2001
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 12:15:54 -0500
From: Joe Provo <joe.provo@rcn.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010227121554.A91905@ultra.net>
Reply-To: joe.provo@rcn.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.30.0102270801060.7752-100000@moench.nielsen.net>; from cnielsen@nielsen.net on Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 08:01:46AM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 08:01:46AM -0800, Christian Nielsen wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2001, Simon Leinen wrote:
> > For 64.0.0.0/8 this seems to have happened in the meantime... but now
> > there's a route for 62.0.0.0/8 (the RIPE equivalent of 64.0.0.0/8), sigh.
>
> i dont know why you even allow 64/8 and/or 62/8 into your network. Filter
> them...
Amen to that. While we have and can go on for days about filtering on
the 'low end' of sizes in the modern allocation ranges, I sincerely hope
no one in their right mind would attempt to argue that there's any
purpose to accepting 24.0.0.0/8, 61.0.0.0/8 - 66.0.0.0/8.
I'm certain folks will kvetch about being able to filter large aggregates
in these spaces, but there is simply a lot of clueless classful configuration
that goes on Out There. Unsuprisingly, the recent-allocation spaces get
more hits on the filters than, say, net-24. Regardless on your stance of
allocation-boundary filtering, this is just sane defense of your network
against bogons.
Cheers,
Joe
--
Joe Provo Voice 508.486.7471
Director, Internet Planning & Design Fax 508.229.2375
Network Deployment & Management, RCN <joe.provo@rcn.com>
