Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!NCNOC.TUCC.EDU!jrr
From: jrr@NCNOC.TUCC.EDU (Joe Ragland)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.proteon
Subject: Re: p4200 routing
Message-ID: <8812291544.AA11625@ncnoc.tucc.edu>
Date: 29 Dec 88 15:44:32 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 44

p4200 folks,

I think I am ready to draw this recent discussion to an end or at least
my participation in it by saying thanks to all who took their time to
give us their input.  Also, I've learned some things I'd like to share
with you.

When I was drug into the IP world I was first told that one most
important functions of a gateway was the firewall function.  It protects
your network from mine and my network from yours and forwards only those
packets or datagrams that meet some test of conformity and validity.
Then, there was no definitive document that detailed what is involved
in the process, only general notions of routing and some discussion of
various protocols involved.  Now we have RFC-1009 and I am pleased it is
explicit in marking packets addresses to net 127 as bogons to be
short circuited at the gateway.

When RFC-1009 came out I retrieved a copy, printed a copy, and then set
it aside saying I should read it some day when I get the time.  My
thinking then was that this RFC is important to those designing gateways
and writing code for such purposes but since I am doing neither it is
of less importance to me.  That was a mistake.  If I had read it I at
least might have remembered some reference to net 127.  What I reacted
to was a crack in the p4200 firewall.

As I reflect on this discussion I come to the conclusion that all of us
involved directly in the gateway game need to read carefully RFC-1009.
It is up to those of us with networking responsibilities to enforce
standards and requirements as they evolve by insisting that vendors
have met those standards when we are out to procure the next set of
gateway boxes.  Otherwise, Braden and Postel have wasted their time and
we are in for a heap of trouble down the road trying to interoperate
especially in view of plans for NSFNET, RIB, DRI, various agency and
academic networks.

In general the p4200 does a good job of firewalling and a nice job
of reporting events in this regard.  It could use a bit more attention
in this respect so I trust someone at Proteon is listening.  I'd be
surprised if Cisco and other gateway vendors don't read
comp.sys.proteon too so there is some message here I think for all.

Happy gatewaying in the new year.

Joe