Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 15:41:52 -0400 From: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-current@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ctm Message-ID: <20947.865107712@orion.webspan.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 31 May 1997 12:49:24 BST." <l03020902afb5beb3f221@[194.32.164.2]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bob Bishop wrote in message ID <l03020902afb5beb3f221@[194.32.164.2]>: > >15 10.1.1.3 (10.1.1.3) 230 ms 187 ms 187 ms > Eeek! Noone should be advertising a route to 10.x.x.x (see RFC1918). Try > shouting at mci.net I doubt that they are advertising it, just using it internally. You do not need to advertise net10 through BGP to return it as a hop in a traceroute... IMHO, net 10 (and the other 1918 networks) should NOT be visable at all from the rest of the 'net, not even to traceroute. Unfortunately, I've been told that a combination of the NIC being extremely miserly with new IP allocations, and security problems in router/terminal server software is causing more and more systems to be put into RFC1918 address space. The implications are interesting ... I filter my inbound lines to remove illegal src IP addresses (like the 1918 addresses). So what happens when one of those systems on a reserved network sends a reply to path MTU discovery that the packet needs to be fragmented? Gary -- Gary Palmer FreeBSD Core Team Member FreeBSD: Turning PC's into workstations. See http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/ for info
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20947.865107712>