Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!ur-tut!sunybcs!boulder!hao!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!G.BBN.COM!CLYNN From: CLYNN@G.BBN.COM Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: An even worse week for EGP.... Message-ID: <[G.BBN.COM]22-Jan-88.10:57:58.CLYNN> Date: 22 Jan 88 15:57:00 GMT References: <8801220146.AA13952@percival.cs.purdue.edu> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 16 I also noticed strange network numbers a couple months ago. When I ask about it, I was told that the bogus numbers were coming from a gateway which had a noisy line to the net. Maybe the protocol being used didn't have a checksum, maybe it was turned off, maybe it wasn't "strong enough". Once the information gets into a table, it would be propogated. I didn't get the impression that the problem had a very high priority; the "only" adverse effect would be to use a slot in routing tables, and since it was a bogus net, nobody should be using it, and they should time out. I suspect that, given the dynamic and evolving nature of the Internet, any code which assumes "otherwise " will cause us problems before too long. E.g., the new internet multicast addresses, the new IP and TCP options that we would like to create, etc. Charlie