[75297] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Wed Nov 10 22:36:11 2004
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 03:35:41 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
In-reply-to: <DDC7F6127D700C4496571A94C242AA79012180A2@EMAILSTORE13.target.com>
To: "Network.Security" <Network.Security@target.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Network.Security wrote:
> "Depending on putting devices on 1918 for security is dangerous. " -
> Simon J. Lyall.
>
> Agreed. RFC 1918 is a good idea, it's not the law, and with that ISP's
> are not required to do anything about 1918 addr's if they choose not to.
> We receive a disturbingly large amount of traffic sourced from the 1918
^^^^^^^
>
> That's odd, I didn't think routing to Null0 (or equivalent) was all that
> taxing, I don't want an ACL, I want it gone in the cheapest, fastest way
> possible.
that's odd... routing is a DESTINATION based problem, not a SOURCE based
one.
