[NANOG] Re: rfc 1918

Fri Feb 23 01:21:24 UTC 2001

Jim Shankland <nanog at shankland.org> tapped some keys and produced:

> 
> Note that the proposition, "Providers should filter RFC1918-sourced 
> packets at the periphery" is a subset of the proposition, "Providers 
> should filter at the periphery packets with source addresses not 
> explicitly authorized by the provider."  I subscribe to the second 
> proposition, and hence implicitly to the former.  The problem is not the 
> stray RFC1918-sourced packet here or there.  The problem is that
> the de facto standard is that you can inject packets with arbitrary
> source addresses into the Internet from anywhere.  The number of attacks 
> that use spoofed source addresses is reason enough to change
> this.
> 
> But I'm not holding my breath.

No, let's just wait till National Government Security Comittees decide to
make the decision for us for interests of National Cyber Security against
cyber-terrorism attack from the Bin Laden Playstation 2 attack clusters.

Shitty situation, ranting against a wall. It's like demanding Microsoft
software to be stable. Perhaps I should pick up religion as a hobby.

Pi

-- 
conf t
no ip-directed marketing drivel
^Z
wr mem