[87814] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: do bogon filters still help?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (william(at)elan.net)
Wed Jan 11 16:32:54 2006
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:32:20 -0800 (PST)
From: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net>
To: Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@neustar.biz>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>,
Martin Hannigan <hannigan@world.std.com>, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <a06200707bfeb0db50292@[10.31.32.215]>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Edward Lewis wrote:
>
> At 20:28 +0100 1/11/06, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Martin Hannigan:
>>
>>>> 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).
>>
>>> Good example as to why to use authoratative sources only.
>>
>> But most authoritative sources are too shy to make explicit
>> operational recommendations. 8-)
>
> The authoritative sources put the data out there. What more can you ask of
> them? What more do you want? It's been said that the neutral parties (the
> authorities are supposed to be neutral) should not make business decisions
> for the industry. Recommending route filters is a business decision.
> Operational recommendations in general are business decisions.
Nevertheless I'd prefer to see authoritative source (i.e. ICANN & IANA)
be more involved then just text file on a website. For example IETF
does more both in terms of notifications (which they sent to multiple
lists for each published RFC - with lists being different depending on
what RFC its on-topic for) and in terms of information for operational
use (i.e. published BCPs and separate OPS area). Ultimately of course
IANA is closely related to activities of IETF but I think it does have
its own role to play and notifications of changes to its indexes is
within its area of responsibility.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william@elan.net
