3 ms·
RFC1918. If memory serves, it does say "should not" and not "MUST NOT" (cf. RFC2119). Thus, it's not technically a "violation" to do so but it certainly goes a
by jlgaddis 11y ago
RFC1918.
If memory serves, it does say "should not" and not "MUST NOT" (cf. RFC2119). Thus, it's not technically a "violation" to do so but it certainly goes against the recommendations, IMO.
I also "do DNS for a living" (and have been for ~20 years) but I'm sure there's still things that I don't know. This is one of those often overlooked things simply because it isn't that common and one doesn't often see any major issues because of it.
- kiallmacinnes 11y agoSo it does, I've never noticed this section before: Indirect references to such addresses should be contained within the enterprise. Prominent examples of such references are DNS Resource Records and other information referring to internal private addresses. In particular, Internet service providers should take measures to prevent such leakage.