Re: Class E addresses in the wild
It is (or was) fairly commonly in use among internal nets which overflowed RFC 1918 or have to internetwork with other heavy users of RFC 1918 space. I know of at least two service providers and one cell network who were using it for that 3 years ago. Someone leaking internal routes for such? Or attempt to hijack the space? Only the Shadow knows... On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote: No authorized IETF use that I know of. See http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Buz Dale buzd...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone else seeing a lot of Class E address space (240.0.0.0/4) at their borders? Has this space been reinstated in some as yet unknown to me RFC? Thanks, Buz -- Buz Dale buzd...@gmail.com GMT -5 -- -- Buz Dale buzd...@gmail.com GMT -5 -- -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
Re: Why are there no GeoDNS solutions anywhere in sight?
Wasn't this problem solved by foursquare.com?! /joke -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: Why are there no GeoDNS solutions anywhere in sight?
But what I don't understand is why everyone implies that the status quo with round-robin DNS is any better. I don't think anyone believes round robin DNS records is better. It's that attempting to do better requires adding onto or changing standards that must maintain backwards compatibility and thus nearly useless until everyone adopts it, or hack jobs that have hilariously funny failure scenarios that are unavoidable because it comes down to guess work.
Re: Class E addresses in the wild
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:06 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: It is (or was) fairly commonly in use among internal nets which overflowed RFC 1918 or have to internetwork with other heavy users of RFC 1918 space. I know of at least two service providers and one cell network who were using it for that 3 years ago. I am pretty sure Class E is completely defunct and not used anywhere since Cisco and Juniper routers do not forward the packets (circa 2008 testing) and no known host accept it as a valid address, AFAIK. CB Someone leaking internal routes for such? Or attempt to hijack the space? Only the Shadow knows... On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com wrote: No authorized IETF use that I know of. See http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Buz Dale buzd...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone else seeing a lot of Class E address space (240.0.0.0/4) at their borders? Has this space been reinstated in some as yet unknown to me RFC? Thanks, Buz -- Buz Dale buzd...@gmail.com GMT -5 -- -- Buz Dale buzd...@gmail.com GMT -5 -- -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
Re: Class E addresses in the wild
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 5:10 PM, cb.list6 cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: I am pretty sure Class E is completely defunct and not used anywhere since Cisco and Juniper routers do not forward the packets (circa 2008 testing) and no known host accept it as a valid address, AFAIK. Both the net and host sides of this are trivially repairable problems, even for crazy cellphone network operators. As long as you have host source code and a network vendor you can demand custom patches from -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
