-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On May 15, 2008, at 2:31 PM, Justin Shore wrote:
> I can't think of any reason why this prefix wouldn't be advertised. > Any > ideas? I noticed it today because I have customers trying to hit 0/8 > IPs (0.4.24.200 for example) that my egress ACLs are catching. This is due to how Cisco treats martian networks per their interpretation (or real meaning) of RFC 1812. Since the following are martians, to cover the "Should not" route part of 5.3.7, they won't install them in the route table. 0.0.0.0/8 127.0.0.0/8 128.0.0.0/16 181.255.0.0/16 192.0.0.0/24 233.255.255.0/24 240.0.0.0/4 I've only personally tested 240.0.0.0/4 and it will not install in the route table. I've also not tried to figure out what more or less specific routes you could try and install to cover these blocks. David > Thanks > Justin > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkgtsPYACgkQLa9jIE3ZamNprgCfUAoV0GXj0Ob1HNg8pyifER1a 6T8AoIWpvrB87i+VjRmp3avNPNRTJAV8 =1Klc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
