On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:17:53 -0400, Ca By wrote:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02
Proposed and denied. Please stop this line and spend your efforts on ipv6
By APNIC. Cisco did, too, btw. And they weren't first, either. Nor is this
going to be the last time someone sugges
How many devices need IPs? Is there a reason ARIN can't be used?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jun 17, 2015 10:18 PM, "John Levine" wrote:
> >IIRC, the short answer why it wasn't repurposed as additional unicast
> >addresses was
>IIRC, the short answer why it wasn't repurposed as additional unicast
>addresses was that too much deployed gear has it hardcoded as
>"reserved, future functionality unknown, do not use." Following an
>instruction to repurpose 240/4 as unicast addresses, such gear would
>not receive new firmware o
No, we examined this back in 2007. See your favorite cache site
for http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/240-e
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / CotSG / Usenix / NANOG
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, Jonas Björk wrote:
>
> >> Given how slowly IPv6 is deploying, this choice may prove to have been
> >> shortsighted.
> >
> > I doubt it. As you said, there is A LOT of crap out there that would
> have to be updated. Pulling a number out of the air, I'd guess *most*
> i
>> Given how slowly IPv6 is deploying, this choice may prove to have been
>> shortsighted.
>
> I doubt it. As you said, there is A LOT of crap out there that would have to
> be updated. Pulling a number out of the air, I'd guess *most* in-use devices
> would NEVER see such an update. Even from
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:38:32 -0400, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> You may be confused. ARIN never possessed class E; it's held in
>> reserve by IETF. As much as I enjoy a good ARIN bashing, they and John
>> Curran are quite faultless here.
>>
>
> Quo
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:38:32 -0400, William Herrin wrote:
You may be confused. ARIN never possessed class E; it's held in
reserve by IETF. As much as I enjoy a good ARIN bashing, they and John
Curran are quite faultless here.
Quote-unquote, as in they didn't even bother *even proposing* to use
Not used in the sense you imagine, but I designed a hack where we hash IPv6
addresses into 224/3 (class D and E space) so backends that don't support
IPv6 can still be provided a pseudo-IP. This accelerated support of IPv6
across all Google services without needing to wait for each individual
back
In message
, Ca By
writes:
> On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, William Herrin wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Ricky Beam > > wrote:
> > > I'll wait for Curran to pop up with various links to reasons why Class E
> > was
> > > "abandoned" by ARIN. (short answer: too much broken crap th
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Ricky Beam > wrote:
> > I'll wait for Curran to pop up with various links to reasons why Class E
> was
> > "abandoned" by ARIN. (short answer: too much broken crap thinks it's
> > multicast!)
>
> Hi Ricky,
>
>
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> I'll wait for Curran to pop up with various links to reasons why Class E was
> "abandoned" by ARIN. (short answer: too much broken crap thinks it's
> multicast!)
Hi Ricky,
You may be confused. ARIN never possessed class E; it's held in
reserve
.I would most
> definitely not recommend 240.0.0.0
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luan Nguyen
> Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2015 9:07 a.m.
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4
>
> I
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 05:07:25PM -0400, Luan Nguyen wrote:
> Is that safe to use [240.0.0.0/4] internally? Anyone using it? Just
> for NATTING on Cisco gears...
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 06:30:04PM -0300, Eduardo Schoedler wrote:
> And what about 0.0.0.0/8?
On both counts: NO. I always assume pa
You'll find as well, a lot of hosts (eg, I know at least Windows XP)
won't forward to Class E destinations.
-Tom
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
> There is already more than enough address space allocated for NAT, you
> don't need to start using random prefixes that may or may
There is already more than enough address space allocated for NAT, you
don't need to start using random prefixes that may or may not be needed for
other purposes in the future.
For all we know, tomorrow someone could write an RFC requesting an address
reserved for local anycast DNS and it could be
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:07:25 -0400, Luan Nguyen
wrote:
Is that safe to use internally? Anyone using it?
Just for NATTING on Cisco gears...
As you've already figured out, Class E space is still restricted on Cisco
gear.
I'll wait for Curran to pop up with various links to reasons why Class
And what about 0.0.0.0/8?
--
Eduardo Schoedler
2015-06-17 18:21 GMT-03:00 Luan Nguyen :
> Cisco IOS-XE Fails
> ip add 241.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
> Not a valid host address - 241.1.1.1
> ip route 241.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.10.10.1
> %Invalid destination prefix
> XR-OS : fails
> Can take the IP on a inte
Cisco IOS-XE Fails
ip add 241.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
Not a valid host address - 241.1.1.1
ip route 241.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.10.10.1
%Invalid destination prefix
XR-OS : fails
Can take the IP on a interface, but cant route it
IOS fails
we used up all the reserved ip blocks including the 169.254 and the
b
Probably fine to NAT it yourself until it is allocated and someone starts
using it.
Why not just use RFC1918 space?
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1JEgabzMOJx1l25zHZK5wv4_Tn9KRsyDGgSq-M4g
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy,
Use 100.64.0.0/10, this is the CGNAT reserved range.I would most definitely not
recommend 240.0.0.0
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luan Nguyen
Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2015 9:07 a.m.
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Luan Nguyen wrote:
> Is that safe to use internally? Anyone using it?
> Just for NATTING on Cisco gears...
>
most things, including most cisco gear, will not forward those Class E
packets or accept Class E as a valid address
If you have success, please report it
Is that safe to use internally? Anyone using it?
Just for NATTING on Cisco gears...
23 matches
Mail list logo
