On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:36:43 -0500, Jason Lewis <jle...@packetnexus.com> wrote; > > I don't want to start a flame war, but this article seems flawed to > me.
Any article that claims a /12 is a 'class B', and a /16 is a 'Class C', is DEFINITELY 'flawed'. > It seems an IP is an IP. True. *BUT*, "some IP's are more equal than others", as Orwell would say. > > http://www.redtigersecurity.com/security-briefings/2011/9/16/scada-vendors-use-public-routable-ip-addresses-by-default.html > > I think I could announce private IP space, so doesn't that make this > argument invalid? You likely would have a 'rude surprise' if you actually tried it. It is an express violation of RFCs to announce routing for RFC-1918 space -outside- of your own network. In addition, virtually _every_ ASN operator has ingress filters on their border routers to block almost all traffic to RFC-1918 destinations. "Good net neighbor" operators also run egress filters that block almost all outbound traffic with RFC-1918 _source_ addresses -- things like icmp 'un- reachables' are an exception. > I've always looked at private IP space as more of a > resource and management choice and not a security feature. >
