[87808] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: do bogon filters still help?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Florian Weimer)
Wed Jan 11 13:50:03 2006
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:49:22 +0100
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0601111023370.20314@sokol.elan.net> (william elan
net's message of "Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:29:24 -0800 (PST)")
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
* william elan net:
> For those doing similar exercise, you might want to look at rephrased
> version of rfc330 listed blocks:
> http://www.completewhois.com/iana-ipv4-specialuse.txt
You should move 192.88.99.0/24 from SPECIAL to YES (although you
shouldn't see source addresses from that prefix, no matter what the
folks at bit.nl think). 169.254.0.0/16 should be NO (otherwise it
wouldn't be link-local).
to make the list more future-proof, listing 128.0.0.0/16,
191.255.0.0/16, 192.0.0.0/24 and 223.255.255.0/24 as YES might be a
good idea. I'm not sure what to do with 39/8.
I haven't looked at RFC 3330, but another RFC reserves 192.0.2.0/24
for examples in documentation. In practice, this prefix is used for
distributing fake null routes over BGP, so it's a rather strong NO.
