Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Just for the record, the original post was in reference to use of non-RFC1918 space on an *air-gapped* network. --Trey >> 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. >> Anybody feel like sta

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > FD00::/8 > > ula-l rfc 4139 s/4139/4193/ -- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Skeeve Stevens wrote: > Owned by an ISP? It isn't much different than it is now. > > As long as you are multi-homed you can get a small allocation (/48), > APNIC and ARIN have procedures for this. > > Yes, you have to pay for it, but the addresses will be yours, unlike > the RFC1918 ranges which

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:25:40 +0900, Randy Bush said: >>> Not quite.. >>> 2^96 = 79228162514264337593543950336 >>> 2^128-2^32 = 340282366920938463463374607427473244160 >> not quite. let's posit 42 devices on the average lan segment >> (ymmv). >> >> 42*(2^

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Randy Bush wrote: 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 Consider it mentioned, first

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)

--On onsdag, onsdag 4 feb 2009 19.02.56 -0500 "Patrick W. Gilmore" wrote: > Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand each > cable modem a /64? Telia got their /20 based on calculations where they give every customer a /48. Every apartment in every highrise gets 2^16 n

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)

On 5/02/2009, at 3:09 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote: TJ wrote: No, we should hand each home a /56 (or perhaps a /48, for the purists out there) - allowing for multiple segments (aka subnet, aka links, etc.). If there are, say, 250-500 million broadband services in the world (probably more)

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)

>Has anyone done some analysis of what this might look like? Especially with growth etc. Sure, probably lots of people lots of times. Off the top of my head, using some current/common allocations sizes: Current "Global Unicast" space --> 2000::/3 An "average" RIR --> /12 a

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:35:15 -0500, James R. Cutler wrote: Clarification here: 1/8 was never on the EDS backbone. Was only used locally in one site, as far as I can determine. They might have done that for other customers as well. (to avoid 10/8 collisions.) Personally, I'd think if th

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)

TJ wrote: No, we should hand each home a /56 (or perhaps a /48, for the purists out there) - allowing for multiple segments (aka subnet, aka links, etc.). If there are, say, 250-500 million broadband services in the world (probably more) then, if every ISP followed best practise for IPv6 addr

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)

TJ wrote: >> Some devices will refuse to work if you subnet smaller than a /64. (Yes, >> poorly designed, etc.) > > Actually, no - not poorly designed. The spec says it must be a /64 > (excluding those starting with 000 binary) so that is what devices > (rightfully) expect. Ref: http://tools.

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)

>Some devices will refuse to work if you subnet smaller than a /64. (Yes, >poorly designed, etc.) Actually, no - not poorly designed. The spec says it must be a /64 (excluding those starting with 000 binary) so that is what devices (rightfully) expect. Ref: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)

>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore >> wrote: >> >>> Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used >>> one trillion IP addresses. >> >> Of course they will! A /48 is only the equivalent of 65536 "networks" >> (each network being a /64). Presuming that ISPs a

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Clarification here: 1/8 was never on the EDS backbone. Was only used locally in one site, as far as I can determine. On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote: I see you've never done business with EDS. They've been using 1/8 for over a decade. Also, over the years, I've seen a numbe

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

> I see you've never done business with EDS. They've been using 1/8 for > over a decade. Also, over the years, I've seen a number of universities > and supercomputing facilities number nodes out of 1/8 -- however, those > systems are never supposed to see the internet anyway, so they could

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:56:44 -0800, Scott Howard wrote: > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:30 PM, > Anthony Roberts wrote: > >> 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 >> address as flags for thing

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)

> > IPv4-style utilization ratios do make some sense under IPv6, but not > > at the > > address level - only at the network level. > > First, it was (mostly) a joke. > > Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand > each cable modem a /64? > At the least. Some would sa

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)

Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Scott Howard wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore >> wrote: >> >>> Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one >>> trillion IP addresses. >> >> Of course they will! A /48 is only the equivale

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)

On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Scott Howard wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one trillion IP addresses. Of course they will! A /48 is only the equivalent of 65536 "networks" (each network be

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Anthony Roberts wrote: > 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 > address as flags for things. Suddenly you find yourself using a prefix > that should enough

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

--On onsdag, onsdag 4 feb 2009 17.44.20 -0500 Ricky Beam wrote: > On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:29:36 -0500, Skeeve Stevens > wrote: >> I agree... I'd love to know where they got that from... who even wrote >> it? > > I see you've never done business with EDS. They've been using 1/8 for > over a de

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:29:36 -0500, Skeeve Stevens wrote: I agree... I'd love to know where they got that from... who even wrote it? I see you've never done business with EDS. They've been using 1/8 for over a decade. Also, over the years, I've seen a number of universities and superco

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Feb 3, 2009, at 5:25 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote: On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 11:57:36AM +1100, Skeeve Stevens wrote: OK. Following myself up, and referencing a link someone else gave me in regards to IPv6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network Has the entry: Private use of other rese

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

I agree... I'd love to know where they got that from... who even wrote it? ...Skeeve -Original Message- From: Matthew Palmer [mailto:mpal...@hezmatt.org] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 12:26 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space On Wed, Feb 04,

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 11:57:36AM +1100, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > OK. > > Following myself up, and referencing a link someone else gave me in regards > to IPv6 > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network > > Has the entry: > > Private use of other reserved addresses > > Several other addr

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

s as one way to handle route growth. > ...Skeeve > > -Original Message- > From: Peter J. Cherny [mailto:pet...@luddite.com.au] > Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 11:06 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space > &

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

ginal Message- From: Skeeve Stevens [mailto:ske...@skeeve.org] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 9:48 AM To: 'David Conrad'; 'Bruce Grobler' Cc: 'NANOG list' Subject: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space OK, I will make an (what looks to this list) embarrassing a

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong wrote: >... > I don't know what the APNIC fees and membership requirements are. A succinct summary, see below ! > However, in the ARIN region, you do not need to be a member to get > address sp

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Owen DeLong wrote: ... I don't know what the APNIC fees and membership requirements are. A succinct summary, see below ! However, in the ARIN region, you do not need to be a member to get address space. The renewal fee for end-user space is $100/year. If you can't afford $100/year, how are y

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On 4/02/2009, at 12:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: There is the ULA-Random space, but, I'm not sure if that got ratified or was rescinded. I really don't see a need for RFC-1918 in the IPv6 world. RFC-1918 was intended to solve a problem with a shortage of address space by allowing disparate pr

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

| One Manhattanville Rd OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577 http://www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139 -Original Message- From: Zaid Ali [mailto:z...@zaidali.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:19 PM To: Roger Marquis Cc: nanog@nanog.o

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Skeeve Stevens wrote: [please fix your line length, my screen is still not a 100"] > Owned by an ISP? It isn't much different than it is now. > > As long as you are multi-homed you can get a small allocation (/48), > APNIC and ARIN have procedures for this. > > Yes, you have to pay for it, but

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Skeeve Stevens wrote: Owned by an ISP? It isn't much different than it is now. As long as you are multi-homed you can get a small allocation (/48), APNIC and ARIN have procedures for this. Yes, you have to pay for it, but the addresses will be yours, unlike the RFC1918 ranges which is akin t

IPv6 space (was: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space )

> Which is exactly what they should do - actually before that one would > hope. This is not the "$200/hour chcklehead consultant"'s fault, that > is the design. > > Don't you love the idea of using 18446744073709551616 IP addresses to > number a point-to-point link? > Let's not ignore that al

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Stephen Sprunk wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one trillion IP addresses. Keyword: *Another* Are you sure? According to ARIN staff, current implementation of policy is that all requests are approved since there are no de

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

thing. ..Skeeve -Original Message- From: David Conrad [mailto:d...@virtualized.org] Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2009 6:48 AM 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 all, null ro

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

lson [mailto:da...@davidcoulson.net] Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2009 7:11 AM To: Bruce Grobler Cc: 'NANOG list' Subject: 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--

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

[mailto:dav...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 9:06 AM To: ske...@skeeve.org Cc: 'Zaid Ali'; 'Roger Marquis'; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space The problem with that solution mainly being that the application itself still needs some sor

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

> -Original Message- > From: Måns Nilsson [mailto:mansa...@besserwisser.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:19 PM > To: Matthew Huff; 'Zaid Ali'; 'Roger Marquis' > Cc: 'nanog@nanog.org' > Subject: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

LLC | Purchase, NY 10577 http://www.ox.com | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139 > -Original Message- > From: Zaid Ali [mailto:z...@zaidali.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:19 PM > To: Roger Marquis > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re:

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

pdate over time. These internal applicatio ns aren't running on public IP addresses anyway. ...Skeeve -Original Message- From: Zaid Ali [[1]mailto:z...@zaidali.com] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 5:19 AM To: Roger Marquis Cc: [2]na...@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC191

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

nyway. ...Skeeve -Original Message- From: Zaid Ali [mailto:z...@zaidali.com] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 5:19 AM To: Roger Marquis Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space I don't consider IPv6 a popularity contest. It's about the motivation and the

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

ovide most of the home networking equipment. The big boys have supported v6 NAT and NAT-PT for ages. ...Skeeve -Original Message- From: Roger Marquis [mailto:marq...@roble.com] Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 4:40 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP spac

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Måns Nilsson [mailto:mansa...@besserwisser.org] > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 4:19 PM > To: Matthew Huff; 'Zaid Ali'; 'Roger Marquis' > Cc: 'nanog@nanog.org' > Subject: RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space > > --On tisdag, tisdag 3 feb 2009 13.24.5

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

--On tisdag, tisdag 3 feb 2009 13.24.59 -0500 Matthew Huff wrote: > It's not just technical. Companies are reluctant to migrate to an IP > address owned by an ISP. We are one of those companies. If and when it > is easy for us to apply and receive our own Ipv6 address space, we will > look at d

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Matthew Huff wrote: > It's not just technical. Companies are reluctant to migrate to an IP address > owned by an ISP. We are one of those companies. If and when it is easy for us > to apply and receive our own Ipv6 address space, [..] Because like, ARIN wasn't the first RIR to provide that possi

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

li" Cc: "Roger Marquis" , nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 10:22:16 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Zaid Ali wrote: > I don't consider IPv6 a popularity contest. It's about the motivation and the > willi

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

ne: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139 > -Original Message- > From: Zaid Ali [mailto:z...@zaidali.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 1:19 PM > To: Roger Marquis > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space > > I do

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Zaid Ali wrote: I don't consider IPv6 a popularity contest. It's about the motivation and the willingness to. Technical issues can be resolved if you and people around you are motivated to do so. I think there are some hard facts that need to be addressed when it comes to IPv6. Facts like 1. How

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

t ride on your network. Zaid - Original Message - From: "Roger Marquis" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 9:39:33 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> Except t

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Stephen Sprunk wrote: 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 woul

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Thanks all for the input. Cheers, --Trey ++++ Kingfisher Operations Trey Darley - Principal

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Feb 3, 2009, at 1:01 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: 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 ar

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: 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.

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: 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

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

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&#x

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

To: da...@druid.net Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: 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 alloca

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

02, 2009 11:56 AM To: da...@druid.net Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: 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 bo

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

c IP space. -Original Message- From: D'Arcy J.M. Cain [mailto:da...@druid.net] Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:20 AM To: sth...@nethelp.no Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:03:57 +0100 (CET) sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > >

  1   2   >