On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:11:42 -0400, Jeroen van Aart
wrote:
The 16777214 IP addresses (give or take) in their 12/8 assignment aren't
enough? Oh wait, it's probably used internally and renumbering to 10/8
would be too big a hurdle to take. ;-)
The 12/8 address space is fully allocated out,
. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
> Dan,
>
> Can you provide a link to support this?
> If this is true, I wonder how this will work.
>
> Otis
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
&g
joel jaeggli wrote:
On 8/23/12 2:11 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
it's probably used internally and renumbering
to 10/8 would be too big a hurdle to take. ;-)
show route 12.0.0.0/8
...
That was mostly tongue in cheek. I was remembering the reasons people on
here brought up why /8 legacy assign
On 8/23/12 2:11 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
AT&T should just be glad there was a /12 for them to get.
That isn't going to be true for much longer.
If you are counting on an IPv4 free pool to run your business next
year, you are making a bad bet.
The 16777214 IP addresses (
They do have a large managed VPN service where this shouldn't matter very
much, just to throw another possible use case into the pot.
On Aug 24, 2012 3:10 AM, "Ray Soucy" wrote:
> Funny,
>
> Saw this post come through this morning; then got call today for ASA
> configuration help ... I noticed t
Owen DeLong wrote:
AT&T should just be glad there was a /12 for them to get.
That isn't going to be true for much longer.
If you are counting on an IPv4 free pool to run your business next year, you
are making a bad bet.
The 16777214 IP addresses (give or take) in their 12/8 assignment aren'
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Ray Soucy wrote:
Funny,
Saw this post come through this morning; then got call today for ASA
configuration help ... I noticed the guy had configured his ASA to use
"private" networks of 172.100.0.0/24 and 172.200.0.0/24 ... I reminded
him that they don't fall within RFC1918
Funny,
Saw this post come through this morning; then got call today for ASA
configuration help ... I noticed the guy had configured his ASA to use
"private" networks of 172.100.0.0/24 and 172.200.0.0/24 ... I reminded
him that they don't fall within RFC1918 but the response was "oh well,
I don't c
On 8/23/12 10:57 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
I would really hope that wireless providers are planning for IPv6
instead, although a recent thread about Sprint LTE indicates maybe this
is wishful thinking. I know Verizon is but the single LTE MiFi I have
doesn't do IPv6, but I've seen customers with V
On 8/23/12 7:18 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>
>> How does one suddenly justify needing 1,000,000 more IP addresses (explosive
>> expected growth in the next couple months?)
>
> I can easily see people moving through those IPs in short order if y
On Aug 23, 2012, at 08:26 , "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." wrote:
> IMO the justifcation is probably in other areas of their business like cloud
> services, data center, etc.
>
> Obvisouly, it was compelling enough to warrant ARIN's approval for allocation
> of the space in the last stretch of IPv4.
--Original Message-
From: Blake Hudson [mailto:bl...@ispn.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:04 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
I wonder if ATT will be returning some of those /16 and /15 allocations it has
in return for the /12 - http://whois.arin.net/re
On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
> How does one suddenly justify needing 1,000,000 more IP addresses (explosive
> expected growth in the next couple months?)
I can easily see people moving through those IPs in short order if you have a
datacenter or other deployment you are w
e to be AT&T for this IP allocation. Heck, I would simple push more
IPv6 if I were them.
-Original Message-
From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:37 AM
To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
uld hate to be AT&T for this IP allocation. Heck, I would simple push
> more IPv6 if I were them.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:37 AM
> To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
> Cc: nanog@nanog.or
On 8/22/12 10:50 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
So I would say they've come into posession of a rather undesirable
piece of IP address real-estate, as it were.
The days when undesirability of a given ipv4 unicast prefix would play a
significant role in assignment policy are pretty much coming to a close
llocation. Heck, I would simple push more
IPv6 if I were them.
-Original Message-
From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:37 AM
To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
You can do a whois search at ar
On 8/23/12, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 00:29:22 -0500, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." said:
>> 172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet
>> Services.
> Why shouldn't it work? RFC1918 space is 172.16/12, there's no overlap.
I know that, you know that.
On Aug 22, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Dan White wrote:
> I also noticed a couple of subnets in that range showing up in the weekly
> Cidr reports, beginning in July.
Tests to see how bad /8 filters were before allocating the /12?
Just curious...
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
>
> 172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet
> Services.
>
> --
> Dan White
>
>
uot; wrote:
> Dan,
>
> Can you provide a link to support this?
> If this is true, I wonder how this will work.
>
> Otis
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sub
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet
Services.
--
Dan White
White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
>
> 172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet
> Services.
>
> --
> Dan White
>
>
On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 00:29:22 -0500, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." said:
> Can you provide a link to support this?
> If this is true, I wonder how this will work.
> 172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet
> Services.
Why shouldn't it work? RFC1918 space is 172.16/12, there'
e [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
>
> 172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet
> Services.
>
lp.net]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
>
> 172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet
> Services.
>
> --
> Dan White
>
>
Dan,
Can you provide a link to support this?
If this is true, I wonder how this will work.
Otis
-Original Message-
From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated
172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was
172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet
Services.
--
Dan White
28 matches
Mail list logo
