Re: Routing protocols

From: Michel Arboi (mikhailat_private)
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 13:56:37 PDT

  • Next message: Michel Arboi: "Re: Routing protocols"

    Pavel Kankovsky <peakat_private> writes:
    
    > I'd try injecting a bogus route to some reserved address (netblock).
    
    Nice idea. RFC3330 is full of them.
    Maybe 192.0.34.166 (= example.com) which BTW is _not_ part of test-net
    (192.0.2.0) as the RFC said. or maybe an address in test-net?
    
    > Perhaps the infamous "link local" 169.254.0.0/16?
    
    What's the use of this, exactly? I understood that it is a backup
    address pool when no address has been set and no DHCP answers.
    
    > People using reserved addresses who might be harmed by such a test
    > deserve to lose anyway. 
    > The bad news is that routers might ignore routes to reserved/invalid
    > address even if they accept routes to ordinary addresses.
    
    Then example.com looks good: it is inside 192.0.0.0/24 and RFC 3330
    says that "the basis for the reservation no longer applies and
    addresses in this block are subject to future allocation to a Regional
    Internet Registry for assignment in the normal manner".
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 13:56:53 PDT