RFC1918 conformance

Tony Bates tbates at cisco.com
Tue Feb 18 02:26:43 UTC 1997

Right now it checks for:
         >= 64/8 && <= 127/8
	 > 211/8 
         RFC1918 set of prefixes


 Andrew Partan <asp at partan.com> writes:
  * > This would be good as I report each week in my report possible bogus
  * > routes but no one seems to care to filter (or fix this). Today it says:
  * Which routes to you consider to be bogons?
  * 	--asp at partan.com (Andrew Partan)

More information about the NANOG mailing list