Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one trillion IP addresses. Are you sure? According to ARIN staff, current implementation of policy is that all requests are approved since there are no defined criteria that would allow them to deny

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

In message , "Patrick W. Gilmor e" writes: > On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:30 AM, Anthony Roberts wrote: > > >> Let's face it - they're going to have to come up with much more > >> creative > >> $200/hour chucklehead consultants to burn through that much anytime > >> soon. > > > > It has been my expe

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:30 AM, Anthony Roberts wrote: Let's face it - they're going to have to come up with much more creative $200/hour chucklehead consultants to burn through that much anytime soon. It has been my experience that when you give someone a huge address space to play with (e

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

> Let's face it - they're going to have to come up with much more creative > $200/hour chucklehead consultants to burn through that much anytime soon. It has been my experience that when you give someone a huge address space to play with (eg 10/8), they start doing things like using bits in the ad

RE: Peer Filtering

Yep agreed...We balance that by keeping the max-prefix no more than about 40% over the current prefix limit on each peer. For us it is a trade-off, accept the routes or don't send the traffic to peering. The couple of times I have seen route leaks that involved one or two routes they were p

Re: Peer Filtering

$quoted_author = "John van Oppen" ; > > Here in the US we don't bother, max-prefix covers it... It seems that > US originated prefixes are rather sporadically entered into the routing > DBs. ...and you are not worried about someone leaking a subset of routes? I understand that most failure ca

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:25:40 +0900, Randy Bush said: > >> Apart from the basic incompability here, my opinion of IPv6 is that it > >> just gives you 2^96 more addresses to repeat all the old mistakes > >> with. > > Not quite.. > > 2^96 = 79228162514264337593543950336 > > 2^128-2^32 = 340282

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

>> Apart from the basic incompability here, my opinion of IPv6 is that it >> just gives you 2^96 more addresses to repeat all the old mistakes >> with. > Not quite.. > 2^96 = 79228162514264337593543950336 > 2^128-2^32 = 340282366920938463463374607427473244160 not quite. let's posit 42 dev

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On 3/02/2009, at 12:17 PM, Johnny Eriksson wrote: Michael Hallgren : Really really LARGE scalability testing that needs more addresses than RFC1918 gives you. Use IPv6. For an IPv4 scalability test? Interesting idea... Apart from the basic incompability here, my opinion of IPv6 is tha

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

It's not unheard of to see the government cyber squatting unallocated /8 blocks too. -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 3:49 PM To: sth...@nethelp.no Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space i am surpris

Re: Peer Filtering

$quoted_author = "Paul Stewart" ; > > I would like to know whether folks are limiting their peering sessions > (BGP peering at public exchanges) only by max-prefix typically? Are we > the only folks trying to filter all peers using IRR information? No, you're not the only ones. > We've run

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Le lundi 02 février 2009 à 23:17 +, Johnny Eriksson a écrit : > Michael Hallgren : > > > > Really really LARGE scalability testing that needs more addresses than > > > RFC1918 gives you. > > > > Use IPv6. > > For an IPv4 scalability test? Interesting idea... Plaisanterie of sorts... But of

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:17:23 GMT, Johnny Eriksson said: > Michael Hallgren : > > > > Really really LARGE scalability testing that needs more addresses than > > > RFC1918 gives you. > > > > Use IPv6. > > For an IPv4 scalability test? Interesting idea... Might wanna consider that if you're doing

Peer Filtering

Hi folks... I would like to know whether folks are limiting their peering sessions (BGP peering at public exchanges) only by max-prefix typically? Are we the only folks trying to filter all peers using IRR information? We've run across several peers now with 10,000+ prefixes who do not regis

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Stephen Sprunk wrote: Trey Darley wrote: Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been allocated we are pondering the use of public IP space. As the network in question is strictly closed I don't anticipa

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Michael Hallgren : > > Really really LARGE scalability testing that needs more addresses than > > RFC1918 gives you. > > Use IPv6. For an IPv4 scalability test? Interesting idea... Apart from the basic incompability here, my opinion of IPv6 is that it just gives you 2^96 more addresses to repe

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

--On måndag, måndag 2 feb 2009 16.15.06 -0200 Andre Sencioles Vitorio Oliveira wrote: > What about this? > > Genius from company A chooses public IP block A. > Genius from company B chooses public IP block A. > > Genius collision detected... What you do is go to your LIR and ask for a /24 and

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:53:35 PST, David Barak said: > I have long wondered why two entire /8s are reserved for host self > identification( 0 and 127, of course...) It's part of the whole '2**32 addresses should be enough" viewpoint (keep in mind they were coming from NCP, that had a limit of 256 a

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 11:06:42PM +0200, Colin Alston wrote: > On 2009/02/02 07:16 PM mikelie...@gmail.com wrote: >> Some nitwits just grab one out of fat air. >> >> I've seen 192.169.xx and 192.254.xx randomly used before. > > Seen 198/8, 196.200/16 and 172./16 > > And these people are shocked wh

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Le lundi 02 février 2009 à 19:22 +, Johnny Eriksson a écrit : > "Paul Stewart" wrote: > > > What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a > > closed network? It's very bad practice - unfortunately I do see it done > > sometimes > > Really really LARGE scalability te

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On 2009/02/02 07:16 PM mikelie...@gmail.com wrote: Some nitwits just grab one out of fat air. I've seen 192.169.xx and 192.254.xx randomly used before. Seen 198/8, 196.200/16 and 172./16 And these people are shocked when I tell them to renumber before I'll touch their network..

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

--- On Mon, 2/2/09, David Coulson wrote: > I'm curious - Any particular > technical reason not to assign out of 0.0.0.0/8? Can't say > I've ever tried to use it, but I'd think it should work. I have long wondered why two entire /8s are reserved for host self identification (0 and 127, of cours

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

TSG wrote: I find it really troublesome to believe that the subnetting on a site was so complex that it ate an entire /8. What I am betting is that for some reason that ISP wants its addressing to be totally flat and not replicated. The subnetting doesn't need to be "complex"; they may simply

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

i am surprised that no one has mentioned that it is not unusual for folk, even isps, to use space assigned to the us military but never routed on the public internet. i was exceedingly amused when first i did a traceroute from bologna. randy

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009, Nathan Ward wrote: > I think you will find that "most ISPs, if not all" in the DFZ "null > route" 0.0.0.0/0. > If they don't have a route covering 1.0.0.0/8, of course packets > destined to that prefix will be dropped. Damn those backup default routes then... violet:~

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Trey Darley wrote: Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been allocated we are pondering the use of public IP space. As the network in question is strictly closed I don't anticipate any problems with t

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On 3/02/2009, at 5:10 AM, Bruce Grobler wrote: Most ISP's, if not all, null route 1.0.0.0/8 therefore you shouldn't encounter any problems using it in a private network. route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bgp 1.0.0.0 BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/0, version 3321685 ... I think you will fi

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

I can mtr to 1.1.1.1 via Qwest :-) Bruce Grobler wrote: Yep!, go ahead and trace it. -Original Message- From: David Conrad [mailto:d...@virtualized.org] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 9:48 PM To: Bruce Grobler Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space On Feb 2,

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:55:49 +0100 (CET) sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > My assumption throughout this whole discussion, which clearly has not > been understood, is that the public IP block used internally is a > properly allocated by the relevant addressing authority. That is, for > me, the whole point

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Yep!, go ahead and trace it. -Original Message- From: David Conrad [mailto:d...@virtualized.org] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 9:48 PM To: Bruce Grobler Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Bruce Grobler wrote: > Most ISP's, if not

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

I'm curious - Any particular technical reason not to assign out of 0.0.0.0/8? Can't say I've ever tried to use it, but I'd think it should work. David Conrad wrote: Is this true? This will cause endless entertainment when IANA allocates 1.0.0.0/8 sometime within the next two or three years..

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Feb 2, 2009, at 2:47 PM, David Conrad wrote: On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Bruce Grobler wrote: Most ISP's, if not all, null route 1.0.0.0/8 therefore you shouldn't encounter any problems using it in a private network. Is this true? This will cause endless entertainment when IANA allocates 1

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Bruce Grobler wrote: Most ISP's, if not all, null route 1.0.0.0/8 therefore you shouldn't encounter any problems using it in a private network. Is this true? This will cause endless entertainment when IANA allocates 1.0.0.0/8 sometime within the next two or three

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: Right. One side needs to change a config file in their DHCP server and maybe their internal DNS. If they need to change much more than that then its time for a network re-engineering anyway. That, IME, is the real issue here. The re/engineering that should be part of a

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Does anyone actually use any part of 0/8 other than 0/32 for self identification? On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote: > On 02/02/2009 10:45, "Dorn Hetzel" wrote: > > > On a related note, do you think that 0.0.0.0/8 > (excluding > > 0.0.0.0/32

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On 02/02/2009 10:45, "Dorn Hetzel" wrote: > On a related note, do you think that 0.0.0.0/8 (excluding > 0.0.0.0/32 , of course :) ) will be feasible for > allocation and use ? 0.0.0.0/8 is reserved for self-identification. See RFC 1700: (b) {0, }

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Yeah, agreed I had a customer last week call us because we were "blocking them from an important site". After someone called them they found we could access the website no problem... upon further investigation we found their internal IP space had been numbered as 157.166.226.0/24. When we as

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

I see 2 problems off the top of my head with using public IP blocks for private networks. 1) You're not going to be able to reach servers/services/etc that actually have allocated those IP blocks. (May or may not affect you, but that's your issue to deal with in the future). 2) (and more important

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

> > Company A uses public IP block A internally. Company B uses public IP > > OK, so we start out with a bad network design then. No. We start with blocks A and B which are both properly allocated by the relevant addressing authorities. > > block B internally. Company A and B later merge, and co

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

> Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been > using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been > allocated we are pondering the use of public IP space. What you are suggesting is unacceptable. You need to allocate your private space more efficiently.

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On a related note, do you think that 0.0.0.0/8 (excluding 0.0.0.0/32, of course :) ) will be feasible for allocation and use ? On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote: > On 02/02/2009 8:10, "Bruce Grobler" wrote: > > > Most ISP's, if not all, null route 1.0.0.0/8 therefore you shouldn

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 18:50:49 +0100 Chris Meidinger wrote: > On 02.02.2009, at 18:38, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a > closed network? It's very bad practice - unfortunately I do see Of course, this is a different que

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Andre Sencioles Vitorio Oliveira wrote: What about this? Genius from company A chooses public IP block A. Genius from company B chooses public IP block A. Genius collision detected... That's pretty nasty. However this should be able to mitigate some of the ugly scenarios brought up in this th

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:06:58 +0100 (CET) sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > Company A uses public IP block A internally. Company B uses public IP OK, so we start out with a bad network design then. > block B internally. Company A and B later merge, and connect their > networks. No conflict, no renumberin

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

"Paul Stewart" wrote: > What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a > closed network? It's very bad practice - unfortunately I do see it done > sometimes Really really LARGE scalability testing that needs more addresses than RFC1918 gives you. In a closed lab. Yes,

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

What about this? Genius from company A chooses public IP block A. Genius from company B chooses public IP block A. Genius collision detected... On Feb 2, 2009, at 4:06 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: Company A uses public IP block A internally. Company B uses public IP block B internally. Compan

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

> > > How does that help? If you are renumbering due to a merger, couldn't > > > you just agree on separate private space just as easily? > > > > It would ensure that you could get the networks to communicate, without > > IP address conflicts, *before* you started any renumbering. > > Can you ex

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:44:42 +0100 (CET) sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > > How does that help? If you are renumbering due to a merger, couldn't > > you just agree on separate private space just as easily? > > It would ensure that you could get the networks to communicate, without > IP address conflict

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

--- On Mon, 2/2/09, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > Most ISP's, if not all, null route 1.0.0.0/8 therefore > you shouldn't > > encounter any problems using it in a private network. > > Until IANA runs out and gives that space to Google or MS or > Comcast or $WHATEVER_THAT_NETWORK_TALKS_TO. It al

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Using public IP space in general is typically just asking for trouble. I worked with an "ISP" once who decided to use 192.0.0.0/24 for IP's to customers who didn't need a static ip. They did it not knowing what they were doing (oh you mean 192.0.0.0/8 isnt rfc1918) but very quickly they had to

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On 02/02/2009 8:10, "Bruce Grobler" wrote: > Most ISP's, if not all, null route 1.0.0.0/8 therefore you shouldn't > encounter any problems using it in a private network. 1.0.0.0/8 will be allocated in the not too distant future. All currently unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s will be allocated in the

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On 02.02.2009, at 18:38, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:20:25 EST, "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" said: On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:03:57 +0100 (CET) sth...@nethelp.no wrote: What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a closed network? It's very bad practice - unfo

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Feb 2, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Bruce Grobler wrote: Most ISP's, if not all, null route 1.0.0.0/8 therefore you shouldn't encounter any problems using it in a private network. Until IANA runs out and gives that space to Google or MS or Comcast or $WHATEVER_THAT_NETWORK_TALKS_TO. -- TTFN, patr

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

> > There are sometimes good reasons to do this, for instance to ensure > > uniqueness in the face of mergers and acquisitions. > > How does that help? If you are renumbering due to a merger, couldn't > you just agree on separate private space just as easily? It would ensure that you could get t

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:20:25 EST, "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" said: > On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:03:57 +0100 (CET) > sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > > > What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a > > > closed network? It's very bad practice - unfortunately I do see it done > > > sometimes...

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:03:57 +0100 (CET) sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > > What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a > > closed network? It's very bad practice - unfortunately I do see it done > > sometimes > > There are sometimes good reasons to do this, for instance to e

RE: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

I've even seen at a previous place (note: 'previous') that decided to use 40.x.x.x for their internal IP space I find it hard to believe a company can mismanage their IP space that 10.0.0.0, 192.168.0.0, and 172.(16-31).0.0 are all used up, but then again, I shouldn't be surprised. Back in '

Re: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Some nitwits just grab one out of fat air. I've seen 192.169.xx and 192.254.xx randomly used before. On Feb 2, 2009 12:03pm, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a > closed network? It's very bad practice - unfortunately I do see it done

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

> What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a > closed network? It's very bad practice - unfortunately I do see it done > sometimes There are sometimes good reasons to do this, for instance to ensure uniqueness in the face of mergers and acquisitions. Steinar Haug, Net

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Joe Greco wrote: On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Trey Darley wrote: Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been allocated we are pondering

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

If you get an address reservation from a registry, then you could certainly use that space in a way that doesn't entail globally-reachable routing. In fact, IIRC one of the RFCs explicitly mentions this possibility in the event that overlapping private use address space usage makes interconnect

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Most ISP's, if not all, null route 1.0.0.0/8 therefore you shouldn't encounter any problems using it in a private network. -Original Message- From: Michael Butler [mailto:i...@protected-networks.net] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:59 PM To: t...@kingfisherops.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org S

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

> On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Trey Darley > > wrote: > >> > >> Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been > >> using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been > >> allocated we are pondering th

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Trey Darley wrote: > Hi, y'all - > > Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been > using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been > allocated we are pondering the use of public IP space. As the network in > question is strictly closed I don't anticipate

Images from DR and NANOG45

NANOG, Here's my compilation of photos from NANOG45 and the Dominican Republic. Most are taken by my girlfriend and I; some taken by others enjoying a chance to experiment. :) Feel free to share with anyone you wish, download, etc.. http://photos.templin.org/gallery/nanog45 Disclaimer: I

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Trey Darley wrote: Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been allocated we are pondering the use of public IP space. As the network in question is strictly closed I don't anticipate a

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Trey Darley wrote: Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been allocated we are pondering the use of public IP space. A

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Trey Darley wrote: > Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been > using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been > allocated we are pondering the use of public IP space. As the network in > question is stri

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Trey Darley wrote: > > Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been > using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been > allocated we are pondering the use of public IP space. As the network in > question is strictly closed

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a closed network? It's very bad practice - unfortunately I do see it done sometimes Paul -Original Message- From: Trey Darley [mailto:t...@kingfisherops.com] Sent: February 2, 2009 10:48 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject:

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

unless a site you want to reach is on the ip you are using... On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Trey Darley wrote: > Hi, y'all - > > Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been > using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been > allocated we are pondering

Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Hi, y'all - Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been allocated we are pondering the use of public IP space. As the network in question is strictly closed I don't anticipate any problems with this as the