Noah L. Meyerhans wrote: >On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 06:40:45AM -0500, Josh Frick wrote: > >>I thought class C networks were non-routable. >> > >I think you're confused. First of all I think you're confused as to >what a class C network is, and second of all I think you're confused as >to what networks are non-routable and what it means for them to be >non-routable. > >The internet used to be divided into class A, B, and C (and D and E, but >we don't care so much about those). Class C networks were /24s in the >range 192.0.0.0 to 223.255.255.255. Those netblocks certainly were >routable, and in fact most netblock allocation was done from the class C >address space. > >Non-routable addresses are defined by RFC 1918. 10.0.0.0/8, >192.168.0.0/16, and 172.16.0.0/12. The only thing that makes these >non-routable is the fact that you'd be in violation of the RFC to >advertise a route for them. There's nothing built in to routers that >prevents them from being routable > >Now, it does seem a bit weird that the person reporting this unusual >traffic had RFC 1918 traffic routed to their internal network. They >should probably be filtering on the border router (or NAT box, or >whatever it was). > >noah > Yes, I most definitely was confused. Thank you for the clarification. I'm not familiar with the RFCs. My question, however, remains: aren't network addresses in that range supposed to be prevented from crossing (i.e. being routed) the internet? If they are, then it's possible this traffic is local, is it not? I believe my DSL ISP assigns a "private" class IP address before connection. Would this then indicate that the connection attempt was made by another customer of the person's ISP?
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
