Some nitwits just grab one out of fat air.
I've seen 192.169.xx and 192.254.xx randomly used before.
On Feb 2, 2009 12:03pm, sth...@nethelp.no 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
I've even seen at a previous place (note: 'previous') that decided to
use 40.x.x.x for their internal IP space
I find it hard to believe a company can mismanage their IP space that
10.0.0.0, 192.168.0.0, and 172.(16-31).0.0 are all used up, but then
again, I shouldn't be surprised.
Back in
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:20:25 EST, D'Arcy J.M. Cain said:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:03:57 +0100 (CET)
sth...@nethelp.no 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
There
There are sometimes good reasons to do this, for instance to ensure
uniqueness in the face of mergers and acquisitions.
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
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.whatever the hell the admin felt like/16
And these people are shocked when I tell them to renumber before
Le lundi 02 février 2009 à 19:22 +, Johnny Eriksson a écrit :
Paul Stewart pstew...@nexicomgroup.net 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
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 leo.veg...@icann.org wrote:
On 02/02/2009 8:10, Bruce Grobler br...@yoafrica.com wrote:
Most ISP's, if not all, null
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.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Butler [mailto:i...@protected-networks.net]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:59 PM
To: t...@kingfisherops.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
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
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
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Trey Darley [mailto:t...@kingfisherops.com]
Sent: February 2, 2009 10:48 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
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
There are sometimes good reasons to do this, for instance to ensure
uniqueness in the face of mergers and acquisitions.
Steinar Haug,
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Trey Darley t...@kingfisherops.com 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
--On måndag, måndag 2 feb 2009 16.15.06 -0200 Andre Sencioles Vitorio
Oliveira ase...@gmail.com 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
Michael Hallgren m.hallg...@free.fr:
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
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
Hi folks...
I would like to know whether folks are limiting their peering sessions
(BGP peering at public exchanges) only by max-prefix typically? Are we
the only folks trying to filter all peers using IRR information?
We've run across several peers now with 10,000+ prefixes who do not
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:17:23 GMT, Johnny Eriksson said:
Michael Hallgren m.hallg...@free.fr:
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
Using public IP space in general is typically just asking for trouble. I
worked with an ISP once who decided to use 192.0.0.0/24 for IP's to customers
who didn't need a static ip. They did it not knowing what they were doing (oh
you mean 192.0.0.0/8 isnt rfc1918) but very quickly they had to
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:03:57 +0100 (CET)
sth...@nethelp.no 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
There are sometimes good reasons to do this, for instance to ensure
Hi, y'all -
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 this as
the
On 02/02/2009 8:10, Bruce Grobler br...@yoafrica.com 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.
1.0.0.0/8 will be allocated in the not too distant future. All currently
unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s will be
$quoted_author = Paul Stewart ;
I would like to know whether folks are limiting their peering sessions
(BGP peering at public exchanges) only by max-prefix typically? Are we
the only folks trying to filter all peers using IRR information?
No, you're not the only ones.
We've run across
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
i am
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 devices on
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 =
$quoted_author = John van Oppen ;
Here in the US we don't bother, max-prefix covers it... It seems that
US originated prefixes are rather sporadically entered into the routing
DBs.
...and you are not worried about someone leaking a subset of routes?
I understand that most failure cases
Yep agreed...We balance that by keeping the max-prefix no more than
about 40% over the current prefix limit on each peer. For us it is a
trade-off, accept the routes or don't send the traffic to peering. The
couple of times I have seen route leaks that involved one or two routes
they were
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
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
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
