I recall that APNIC, the "unfortunate" custodians of 1.0.0.0/8, had declared that the two prefixes 1.1.1.0/24 and 1.2.3.0/24 would never be allocated to an actual customer network, given the extensive use of them in private network situations like these (1.1.1.1 and 1.2.3.4 respectively being the two culprits.)
Also IIRC there was some testing done in the past which showed that announcing those two prefixes resulted in several hundred mbit of rx traffic, which was one of the factors in that decision. Its a bit unfair to lob the responsibility of handling all that rubbish traffic on to anyone, but likely its interesting for research purposes. On 11 March 2013 15:03, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > Maybe. But a lot of people *have* used it, because I've seen it when > > doing webauth logins e.g. in airports, train networks, etc. And by > > definition, the people unwise enough to use it are also likely to be > > the people unwise enough to return and fix things up in the > > installations they did. > > I certainly havent logged in at a hotel using the default > account after having the cisco login page with 1.1.1.1 address.... nope! > > I think there was once a belief that 1.1.1.1 would never be assigned... so, > rather than accept that it would..and use RFC 1918 space or documentation > space, > they went for that. :( > > alan > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
