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 -- _______________________________________________________ | Web: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/ | PGP Public Key: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/mail.html
Attachment:
pgpxQo8oJ5_j5.pgp
Description: PGP signature