Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?

On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, John Hawkinson wrote:

> 
> > so any isp which lets the outside world see a packet with a source in 1918
> > space is in direct violation of 1918.
> ...
> Nevertheless, the operational reality is that having a traceroute that
> shows RFC1918 addresses is more useful than a traceroute that shows
> * * *, and therefore I suspect most operators will continue to permit
> RFC1918 addresses into their networks as long as a few questionable
> individuals use them to source traffic.
> 
> (If they even bother to think about it.)
> 
> --jhawk
> 

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)


---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc