6/20 I'm so confused. Isn't 192.168.0.0 a non-routing network? ...
\_ http://CNC.net should not be routing these packets. Neither should
XO really, but they might have an agreement with CNC that
makes it hard for them to filter traffic.
\_ Welcome to the world of routing. Sadly, certain Network Operators
are, shall we say, less than clued.
\_ A lot of providers use RFC1918 addresses for 'private' interfaces;
frame relay clouds are a good example of this. They're not
supposed to be routed, but rather just used within a given
cloud or circuit for routers to be able to contact each other.
Sometimes routing information about these slips out, when someone
exports a default route, or doesn't filter correctly (correct
me if I'm wrong, but aren't some protocols, like OSPF, a pain
to filter individual routes/networks with?) so people with
different providers will see these addresses as "existing"
in various places. Shouldn't do any harm, it's just not very
clean. -John
\_ still, one shouldn't be using RFC1918 addresses even for
transit links, as it will get important ICMP messages generated
by the routes filtered out. Things like unreachables and
fragmentation-needed stuff. Its sloppy/bad practice. -ERic
\- terminal administrative domains such as lbl.gov put on a
lot of filters like this, but for some reason, various
transit domains like esnet are refusing to do so ... they
are saying there are some performance issues ... we didnt
argue much or demand to see the evidence but it is possible
there is sort of a reason, i.e. even if the overhead is
small, the fraction of these packets is vanishingly small
--psb |
http://csua.com/feed/