10.0.0

Sat May 31 12:07:48 UTC 1997

<written about another example>
> Of course, RFC1918 addresses should not appear in the global
> routing table. This is a fine example of people not taking
> the responsibility to ensure [filter] that if they do use
> them, they do not leak.
> 

A couple of weeks ago we received a complaint from a customer of a 
customer.  They could get to some places but not others including us.  
This is the traceroute that the dialup customer generated trying to hit 
one of my customers.

1   121 ms   124 ms   112 ms  wchspawcsap01.bellatlantic.net[192.168.107.173]
2   114 ms   118 ms   161 ms  192.168.107.174
3   126 ms   123 ms   123 ms  206.125.197.69
4   304 ms   292 ms   261 ms  ATM5-0-9.dc01.IConNet.NET [204.245.127.157]
5   132 ms   135 ms   126 ms  mae-east.netaxs.net [192.41.177.87]
6   159 ms   136 ms   136 ms  philly-dc-gw-t3-h3-0.netaxs.net[206.161.90.2]
7   146 ms   136 ms   138 ms  207.106.127.6
8     *        *        *     Request timed out.
9     *        *        *     Request timed out.

A doublecheck of the forward DNS gave me:
Name: wchspawcsap01.bellatlantic.net
Address: 192.168.107.173
Aliases:

It would seem that they not only use the RFC1918 addresses but they have
forward DNS set up for it, and evidently reverse DNS is set up internally for
line one of the traceroute to resolve. Or maybe I am missing something. 

Bil