[87813] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: do bogon filters still help?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Florian Weimer)
Wed Jan 11 15:37:06 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 21:36:37 +0100
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0601111054380.20314@sokol.elan.net> (william elan
net's message of "Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:42:19 -0800 (PST)")
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
* william elan net:
>> 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).
>
> I think you just explained it yourself why this is "SPECIAL", i.e.
> routing of it depends on local policies and setup. Anything where it
> is not clear from RFCs if it should be routable or not and where it
> depends on local decisions & policy is what I called SPECIAL.
Uhm, no. 6to4 anycast only works without hickups when the prefix is
NOT treated in any special way. 8-) That's part of its charm. If
operators start to install special filters, they break this
functionality for no real gain.
>> 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.
>
> If you know which RFC it is, I'll update the reference table.
Uhm, looks like I was mistaken. Each time the topic comes up, I
confuse this with RFC 2606 (domain names). No such RFC exists for
IPv4 addresses.
