On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Fred Baker wrote: > >> Are they using them only within their domain(s), and ARIN addresses outside, >> or are they advertising them to their upstream(s) to be readvertised into >> the backbone? >> >> If they are using them internally and NAT'ing to the outside, they're not >> hurting themselves or anyone else. I would personally let them alone. >> > Except you're missing a keyword on the "not hurting themselves" part of > that... It's "YET". > > Once 1.0.0.0/8 starts getting used in the wild for legitimate sites, it means > that this > customer won't be able to reach the legitimate 1.0.0.0/8 sites from within > their > environment and it won't be immediately intuitive to debug the failures. > >> If they are advertising them outside, it adds a small prefix in the ARIN >> domain that doesn't get aggregated by the upstream. Among 300K such prefixes >> it is probably noise, but gently suggesting that they use something >> aggregatable into their upstream's allocation would help a little bit in >> that regard. What they are most likely hurting is themselves, really; a >> datagram sent to the address from an ISP outside themselves probably travels >> via Australia or an Australian ISP. >> > The route announcement notwithstanding, they're using space that does not > belong to them and will belong to someone else in the near future. If you > think that is OK, please let me know what your addresses are so that I can > start re-using them.
Does anyone know if the University of Michigan or Cisco are going be updating their systems and documentation to no longer use 1.2.3.4 ? http://www.google.com/search?q=1.2.3.4+site%3Acisco.com I know that the University of Michigan utilize 1.2.3.4 for their captive portal login/logout pages as recently as monday when I was on the medical campus. - Jared
