do bogon filters still help?

william(at)elan.net william at elan.net
Wed Jan 11 21:32:20 UTC 2006



On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Edward Lewis wrote:

>
> At 20:28 +0100 1/11/06, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Martin Hannigan:
>> 
>>>>  You should move 192.88.99.0/24 from SPECIAL to YES (although you
>>>>  shouldn't see source addresses from that prefix, no matter what the
>>>>  folks at bit.nl think).  169.254.0.0/16 should be NO (otherwise it
>>>>  wouldn't be link-local).
>> 
>>>  Good example as to why to use authoratative sources only.
>> 
>> But most authoritative sources are too shy to make explicit
>> operational recommendations. 8-)
>
> The authoritative sources put the data out there.  What more can you ask of 
> them?  What more do you want?  It's been said that the neutral parties (the 
> authorities are supposed to be neutral) should not make business decisions 
> for the industry.  Recommending route filters is a business decision. 
> Operational recommendations in general are business decisions.

Nevertheless I'd prefer to see authoritative source (i.e. ICANN & IANA)
be more involved then just text file on a website. For example IETF
does more both in terms of notifications (which they sent to multiple 
lists for each published RFC - with lists being different depending on 
what RFC its on-topic for) and in terms of information for operational
use (i.e. published BCPs and separate OPS area). Ultimately of course 
IANA is closely related to activities of IETF but I think it does have 
its own role to play and notifications of changes to its indexes is 
within its area of responsibility.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net



More information about the NANOG mailing list