was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
Joel Jaeggli
joelja at bogus.com
Wed Aug 6 15:20:53 UTC 2008
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
> Was looking over 1918 again, and for the record I have only run into one
> network that follows:
>
> "If two (or more) organizations follow the address allocation
> specified in this document and then later wish to establish IP
> connectivity with each other, then there is a risk that address
> uniqueness would be violated. To minimize the risk it is strongly
> recommended that an organization using private IP addresses choose
> *randomly* from the reserved pool of private addresses, when
> allocating
> sub-blocks for its internal allocation."
>
> I added the asterisks.
>
You're supposed to choose ula-v6 /48 prefixs randomly as well... Any
bets on whether that routinely happens?
While you're home can probably randomly allocate subnets out of a /8 or
/12 for a while without collisions, nobody that's actually building a
subnetting plan for a large private network is going to be able to get
away with that in v4.
> --Patrick Darden
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darden, Patrick S.
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:19 AM
> To: 'Leo Bicknell'; nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Is it time to abandon bogon prefix filters?
>
>
>
> Yes. 1918 (10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16), D, E, reflective (outgoing
> mirroring), and as always individual discretion.
>
> --Patrick Darden
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:10 AM
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Is it time to abandon bogon prefix filters?
>
>
>
> "Bogon" filters made a lot of sense when most of the Internet was
> bogons. Back when 5% of the IP space was allocated blocking the
> other 95% was an extremely useful endevour. However, by the same
> logic as we get to 80-90% used, blocking the 20-10% unused is
> reaching diminishing returns; and at the same time the rate in which
> new blocks are allocated continues to increase causing more and
> more frequent updates.
>
> Have bogon filters outlived their use? Is it time to recommend people
> go to a simpler bogon filter (e.g. no 1918, Class D, Class E) that
> doesn't need to be updated as frequently?
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list