North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: RFC1918 conformance
- From: Andrew Partan
- Date: Tue Feb 11 12:50:35 1997
> > ! Deny martian routes
> > ! 1st and last classical B and C nets (guard nets).
> > access-list 180 deny ip 188.8.131.52 0.0.255.255 255.255.0.0 0.0.255.255
> > access-list 180 deny ip 184.108.40.206 0.0.255.255 255.255.0.0 0.0.255.255
> > access-list 180 deny ip 192.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255
> > access-list 180 deny ip 220.127.116.11 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 0.0.0.255
> In a classless environment, these prefixes are legitimate.
> Correct behaviour is now known for these subnets and so I
> wonder why you still have them in your standard list.
They sure look reserved to me:
note% whois RESERVED
IANA (RESERVED-1) RESERVED 0.0.0.0
IANA (RESERVED-3) RESERVED 18.104.22.168
IANA (RESERVED-4) RESERVED 22.214.171.124
IANA (RESERVED-5) RESERVED 126.96.36.199
IANA (RESERVED-7) Reserved 188.8.131.52 - 184.108.40.206
IANA (RESERVED-8) Reserved 220.127.116.11 - 18.104.22.168
Actually it looks like I should add the top 1/2 of the old A space as well.
It also looks like someone did something really silly with 192.0.0/24:
note% whois 192.0.0
c/o Information Sciences Institute
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 1001
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
Manning, Bill (WM110) bmanning@ISI.EDU
Domain System inverse mapping provided by:
Record last updated on 01-Jul-96.
This idea looks really dumb, and since my >/24 filter blocks these
in any case, I see no reason to listen to silly people to unblock
Poking a bit further at this, it looks like 192.0/16 is all reserved
Netblock: 192.0.0.0 - 22.214.171.124
Humm, more bogons to add to my filter?
--email@example.com (Andrew Partan)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -