[48558] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Bogon list
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Fri Jun 7 05:27:40 2002
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:26:53 +0100 (BST)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@opaltelecom.co.uk>
To: Stephen Griffin <stephen.griffin@rcn.com>
Cc: "Sean M. Doran" <smd@clock.org>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200206062234.SAA30471@elektra.ultra.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote:
>
> In the referenced message, Sean M. Doran said:
> > Basically, arguing that the routing system should carry around
> > even more information is backwards. It should carry less.
> > If IXes need numbers at all (why???) then use RFC 1918 addresses
> > and choose one of the approaches above to deal with questions
> > about why 1918 addresses result in "messy traceroutes."
> >
> > Fewer routes, less address consumption, tastes great, less filling.
> >
> > Sean.
>
> Do you:
> 1) Not believe in PMTU-D
RFC1918 does not break path-mtu, filtering it does tho..
> 2) Not believe in filtering RFC1918 sourced traffic at enterprise boundaries
> (of which an exchange would be a boundary)
What for? You'll find many more much more mailicious packets coming from
legit routable address space.
> 3) Not believe packet-passing devices have legitimate needs in contacting
> hosts, even if hosts don't have legitimate needs for contacting them? (a
> superset of 1, above)
> 4) All or some of the above?
>
> I would love if RFC1918 were adhered to such that L3 packet-passing devices
> either weren't numbered out of those blocks, or allowed what juniper allows
> with the ability to select the ip address with which packets sourced by
> the L3 packet-passing device sent traffic (other than primary ip on
> destination interface). The latter would permit intra-enterprise use
> of RFC1918 addresses, while still conforming with RFC1918. Failing that,
> use of RFC1918 addresses in places where inter-provider packets get
> RFC1918 sources, is a violation of RFC1918.
For p2p you can use unnumbered.. it wont work on exchanges but i agree
they shouldnt be rfc1918.
Steve
>
> In any event, exchanges are inter-enterprise, and shouldn't be RFC1918.
>
>
