On Monday 13 October 2003 16:01, Jeroen Massar wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Juan Rodriguez Hervella wrote: > > On Saturday 11 October 2003 08:46, Leif Johansson wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > > | This is based on the assumption that leaking RFC 1918 routing > > > | information or packets with RFC 1918 source or > > > > destination addresses is > > > > > | actually harmful in and of itself. This is a broken assumption. If > > > > > > Tell that to the root zone operators and brace for the reaction. > > > > Hello Leif, > > > > Do you know what are the problems that *root zone operators* are > > experiencing with RFC 1918 addresses ? It would be very interesting > > if you could explain (to me) some of these issues... I don't see why > > this kind of addresses could be a problem, as long as they > > don't use them.... > > You might want to read http://www.as112.net/ > > Quote: "Because most answers generated by the Internet's root name server > system are negative, and many of those negative answers are in response to > PTR queries for RFC1918 and other ambiguous addresses" > > And that is only queries, you don't want to know how many RFC1918 > sourced addresses they are dropping, can't send an icmp back now can you :)
I would have to read it again, but I think that ICMP error messages are sent with the source address of the output interface, so IMO it would be able to come back. Anyway, thank you very much for the info Jeroen ^--^ -- JFRH -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
