[95160] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Where are static bogon filters appropriate? was: 96.2.0.0/16 Bogons
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Mar 2 10:33:08 2007
To: michael.dillon@bt.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:55:42 GMT."
<2DA00C5A2146FB41ABDB3E9FCEBC74C1014F1761@i2km07-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:31:10 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1172849470_4365P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:55:42 GMT, michael.dillon@bt.com said:
> > one, I'm an example of another, and the advocates of static bogon filters are
important word alert ------> ^^^^^^
> policy and management of that policy. Bogon filters are
> an example of a policy implementation.
Note that I didn't say bogon filters were a bad idea. I said that the
concept of installing a bogon filter and not adjusting it to fit the
changing realities over the years was usually(*) a bad idea.
(*) usually - if your business model allows you to reliably enumerate
the list of sites that you want to talk to, feel free to declare everything
outside the 3 /16s you actually need to talk to a "bogon". Note that in
the preceding sentence, "reliably" is another important word... :)
--==_Exmh_1172849470_4365P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFF6EM+cC3lWbTT17ARAke/AKDgddh9iL5CyUl9/9zeyGeHzonR6QCgk+wj
COQ1ijzfy8pdZ7JJGqbye7Q=
=NIC4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1172849470_4365P--
