Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: do bogon filters still help?
From: Florian Weimer <fw () deneb enyo de>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:49:22 +0100


* william elan net:

For those doing similar exercise, you might want to look at rephrased 
version of rfc330 listed blocks:
 http://www.completewhois.com/iana-ipv4-specialuse.txt

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).

to make the list more future-proof, listing 128.0.0.0/16,
191.255.0.0/16, 192.0.0.0/24 and 223.255.255.0/24 as YES might be a
good idea.  I'm not sure what to do with 39/8.

I haven't looked at RFC 3330, but another RFC reserves 192.0.2.0/24
for examples in documentation.  In practice, this prefix is used for
distributing fake null routes over BGP, so it's a rather strong NO.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]