North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: what the heck do i do now?
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 10:13:08PM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote: > On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > >1) DNS servers which are not configured to blackhole IANA-reserved > > network blocks (read: the majority) will blindly try to reach > > 192.0.0.0/17 and friends. > > 192.0.2.0/24 - This block is assigned as "TEST-NET" for use in > documentation and example code. It is often used in conjunction with > domain names example.com or example.net in vendor and protocol > documentation. Addresses within this block should not appear on the > public Internet. I was going purely off of what ARIN reports: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority RESERVED-192 (NET-192-0-0-0-1) 192.0.0.0 - 184.108.40.206 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority IANA (NET-192-0-2-0-1) 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.255 If there is something magical about 192.0.2.0/24, then I'd love to know what it is (please do educate me!). But from my perspective, it just looks like another IANA-reserved netblock. > That /24 doesn't show up in BGP unless something is broken or you have a > cymru bogon feed. Either way, worst case is you're default routing to an > ISP/NSP and the packets get a few hops before someone drops them as > unroutable. Right, so the mentality here is that "someone" will eventually filter the packets or they'll be dropped due to a null route BGP rule. This I understand, but IMHO it's better to filter such packets before they ever reach someone else's networking gear. (Sorry if I'm not phrasing this as eloquently as possible.) In my case, I simply purchase co-lo space from providers and rely on their routing configurations, hoping they're doing things properly. But as one can see from the ipfw stats I pasted, some aren't. Understand where I'm coming from? > >2) Some people (like myself) have ipfw/pf rules which block and > > log outbound packets to reserved blocks. We log these because > > usually it's the sign of broken software or possibly some weird > > IP routing (read: OS IP stack) problem. In the case of ipfw (I > > haven't tested pf), the block gets reported to underlying layers > > as EACCES, which can be incredibly confusing for admins. > > If it means they get noticed, mission accomplished. That's exactly what > Paul wants. In that case, it's a win-win situation. > >My vote is to simply remove the NS and A records for maps.vix.com > >and let people utilise search engines and mailing list archives to > >figure out where to go (mail-abuse). > > The vix.com NS's will get slammed with all the DNSBL queries then. > The suggestions I made at least get some of the queriers (assuming they > have properly functioning caches) off your back for a while. Hmm, yes, you're absolutely correct. But I'm curious why you picked 192.0.2.0/24 rather than some other reserved block? (I've also sent a copy of this discussion to an associate of mine at Nominum, who's now wondering the same thing I am...) I've found this thread immensely educational so far! -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |