[olug] bad practices at home

[Vincent]

My initial guess was that it wasn't entirely intentional.  I really doubt
they're that short on addresses or they have a good or reasonable cause.

Just a blind guess here...  Could they have unintentionally "added a
functionality" to one of thier internal routers or bridges?

..That's where the "bad practices" part came in.  I'm just imagining someone
working on a router with some weird errors saying:  "Yeah, I know what I'll
do (moves a patch cable; clickity, click, click on an internal router)
There.  That took care of it!"


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Roberson" <brian at bstc.net>
To: <olug at bstc.net>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 12:53 AM
Subject: RE: [olug] bad practices at home


> aux:~ # traceroute home.bstc.net
> traceroute to gomer.bstc.net (24.3.252.27), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
>  1  (REMOVED)
>  2  (REMOVED)
>  3  500.Serial1-3.GW4.MSP1.ALTER.NET (157.130.100.89)  15 ms  15 ms  15
> ms
>  4  0.so4-3-0.XR2.CHI2.ALTER.NET (152.63.67.238)  15 ms  15 ms  15 ms
>  5  POS7-0.BR2.CHI2.ALTER.NET (152.63.67.245)  15 ms  15 ms  15 ms
>  6  137.39.52.106 (137.39.52.106)  16 ms  16 ms  16 ms
>  7  c2-pos10-0.chcgil1.home.net (24.7.77.170)  18 ms  19 ms  18 ms
>  8  c1-pos2-0.desmia1.home.net (24.7.64.165)  24 ms  24 ms  24 ms
>  9  c1-pos2-0.omahne1.home.net (24.7.64.137)  30 ms  29 ms  29 ms
>  10  bb1-pos1-1.rdc1.ne.home.net (24.7.75.250)  30 ms  30 ms  30 ms
>  11  10.88.40.70 (10.88.40.70)  31 ms  31 ms  31 ms
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is a Bad idea, not matter what way you want to look at it.
> ( yes, I removed my packet filters on my core routers to allow 10.x.x.x
> through, just for this display )
> There are internal and external repercussions that are so great, that I
> personally cannot think of any good reason to resort to this type of ip
> engineering.
>
> This is not a flame at you adam, just IMHO :-)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Korab [mailto:adam at ledhazard.net]
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 12:37 AM
> To: olug at bstc.net
> Subject: Re: [olug] bad practices at home
>
>
> On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 12:21:35AM -0500, Brian Roberson wrote:
> > I would have to side with Vincent on this. It is bad mojo when you
> > cant pull out a ip subnet calculator and do proper sub/supernetting.
> > Being as wide spread as @home, and owning an entire class A subnet,
> > what are they thinking? However, it is not in any RFC that you must
> > use public ip space from edge-to-edge. I think the reason they are
> > doing this is that
>
> Right, but there is an RFC1918 that says that the 10/8 subnet is
> reserved for internal use.  A while back on another list I read there
> was a lengthy thread about wheter having RFC1918 addresses on router
> interfaces could break MTU path discovery.  The general upshot is that
> the RFC specifically says that no packets with a reserved address in the
> header (source or destination) should
> leave the network in question.  Also, the RFC says it is not at all
> unreasonable (but not required) for a network to filter packets with
> RFC1918 addresses in the source.  (To prevent attacks and things like
> that.)
>
> Comments/flames/discussion welcome.
>
> --Adam
> --
> "A workstation without a network is like a geek in a field all by
> himself. It looks intriguing, unusual and different but no one will come
> within 20 feet of it." -- Sun help document
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: olug-unsubscribe at bstc.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: olug-help at bstc.net
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: olug-unsubscribe at bstc.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: olug-help at bstc.net
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: olug-unsubscribe at bstc.net
For additional commands, e-mail: olug-help at bstc.net