Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Common operational misconceptions
From: Tony Tauber <ttauber () 1-4-5 net>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:51:19 -0500

Not understanding RFC1918 also gets my vote.
Don't call them "unroutable", ever.
I like it when I hear people say "if you type a net 10 address into a
router, it will reject it".
What do they think people do with those networks anyway?
Call them "private" or "RFC1918" networks/address spaces/ranges.

I don't know if it's really a common misconception, but worth underlining
to people, especially in these days of IPv4 kinkiness, the expectation of
global address uniqueness in the IP model.  (Yes, NATs are probably here to
stay, but they corrupt the model in a number of ways and hacks result.)

Encourage people to use technically precise language.
When reporting or discussing problems, at the IP layer at least, always get
the answers to these questions:

   - What is the source IP addresses (including external NAT IP if
   - What is the destination IP address
   - What is the application being used?
   - What is the error message or behavior if any?
   - Did this ever work and, if so, what date and time did it stop working?


On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Charles Mills <w3yni1 () gmail com> wrote:

Not understanding RFC1918.  Actually got read the riot act by someone
because I worked for an organization that used and that was
"their" network and "they" owned it.


  By Date           By Thread  

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