RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

OK. Poll time:

Who lets 1918 space into and/or out of their borders? If you are and
won't admit it, I'm sure that someone will point you out. If you aren't
(and IMHO you're wise for not doing so) please chime in and show your
HIGH level of clue!

I can attest for the following NOT allowing 1918 sourced packets into
or OUT of their networks.

EnterZone (13944)
FNSI (6259)
Completeweb (13706)
GrayBaron (14813)
Cave Network Group (17266)

(Unless someone has changed routing policy since the last time I saw the
border router configs.)

As result of naming companies with whom I am NOT an officer, I feel
obligated to post the folliwing disclaimer:

I can only attest for prefixes seen via AS13944. I have a very close
professional relationship with the individuals in charge of routing policy
for the networks I have mentioned and as such have knowledge of their
routing policies. I have the highest confidence that none of the above
mentioned networks have changed their routing policy in so much as to
allow packets sourced from or destined for 1918 space will make it
through.

(I am also intoxicated but not so much that I would allow 1918 space into
our out of our network. -- please check the timestamp)

2

OK. Poll time:

This is an extremely poor way to run a poll. You should at least specify
whether you want your answers in private email or a public reply to the
list. Further, it'd be wise to start the subject line with POLL: or
something so the people who have punted the (mostly useless) thread
will pay attention. Also, it's appropriate to give time bounds for your
poll.

Who lets 1918 space into and/or out of their borders? If you are and
won't admit it, I'm sure that someone will point you out. If you aren't
(and IMHO you're wise for not doing so) please chime in and show your
HIGH level of clue!

You've just highly biased the selection by effectively insulting respondants
in the the affirmative. Poll results are now useless, congratulations.

You've now taken NANOG back to the usual sort of uselessness.

Thank you.

--jhawk
  (who values a return packet from a bogus IP address to help him debug a
   problem immensely, and sees filtering such data as Not Going To Help
   With The Social Problem Anyway, not that anyone has tried to organize
   or summarize this discussion in a concise fashion, hence the current
   free-for-all. It's difficult not to respond with ad hominem four-letter
   denegrations of individuals, but somehow I resist.)