North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: [NANOG] RE: rfc 1918?
- From: Pim van Riezen
- Date: Thu Feb 22 20:05:21 2001
woods@weird.com (Greg A. Woods) tapped some keys and produced:
> In practical terms I suppose it also depends on just exactly what
> filtering technology you've deployed, and just exactly how close it is
> to being overloaded. If you are already pushing your router's CPU too
> hard (and if your filters are done by your router's CPU rather than an
> ASIC) then obviously reducing your filter load will be in your own best
> interests and not filtering destination addresses against RFC-1918 will
> be one relatively benign way of reducing the filter load. However if
> your router's CPU is only partially utilised now (even if you push your
> pipe to capacity), then adding such destination filters won't hurt
> anyone.
Would routing them to Null0 not be more optimal?
Pi
--
conf t
no ip-directed marketing drivel
^Z
wr mem
|
