On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 1:24 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
> That means that some IP addresses in the block 192.0.0.0/24 may be
>> routable.
>>
>
It feels like people are talking past each other when they are saying
"routable" — these are fairly clearly not routable on the Global Internet,
but addresse
--
From: Tom Beecher
To: "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)"
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 13:24:47 -0400
>
> That means that some IP addresses in the block 192.0.0.0/24 may be
> routable.
>
> So, I w
>
> That means that some IP addresses in the block 192.0.0.0/24 may be
> routable.
>
> So, I would not make this a bogon.
>
This ignores note 2 on the IANA definitions page, next to 192.0.0.0/24 :
> [2]
>
> Not useable unless by virtue of a more specific reservation.
>
> Which then lists the mor
RFC 5736 was obsoleted by RFC 6890.
It says in part:
2.2.1. Information Requirements
The IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries maintain the
following information regarding each entry:
…
o Forwardable - A boolean value indicating whether a router may
forward an IP datag
ginal message --
From: John Kristoff
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 07:29:54 -0500
On Tue, 14 May 2024 12:00:15 +0200 (CEST)
b...@uu3.net wrote:
> Was RFC5736 obsoleted?
No.
> Its a nice tiny subnet for special purposes. I perso
[10] 192.0.0.0/24 reserved for IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry
[RFC5736]. Complete registration details for 192.0.0.0/24 are found in
[IANA registry iana-ipv4-special-registry].
Was RFC5736 obsoleted? I think not, so I would treat it as bogon.
Its a nice tiny subnet for special purpose
6 matches
Mail list logo
