It is not about security. It is about finding enough bits to service 7 digits
number of subs.
yi
-Original Message-
From: Dobbins, Roland [mailto:rdobb...@arbor.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:19 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space
list
Subject: Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT
On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
No, reusing somebody's prefix is A Very Bad Idea.
Concur 100%. There is no security value to doing this whatsoever - quite the
opposite, given the possible negative
On 7/18/12 6:24 PM, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
So some comments on the intertubes claim that DoD ok'd use of it's
unadvertized space on private networks. Is there any official reference
that may support this statement that anyone of you have seen out there?
The arpanet prefix(10/8) was returned to
On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
No, reusing somebody's prefix is A Very Bad Idea.
Concur 100%. There is no security value to doing this whatsoever - quite the
opposite, given the possible negative consequences to reachability and, thus,
availability.
Subject: RE: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Date:
Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:36:31PM -0400 Quoting Chuck Church
(chuckchu...@gmail.com):
I disagree. I see it as an extra layer of security. If DOD had a network
with address space 'X', obviously it's not advertised
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:36:31PM -0400, Chuck Church wrote:
I disagree. I see it as an extra layer of security. If DOD had a network
with address space 'X', obviously it's not advertised to the outside. It
never interacts with public network. Having it duplicated on the outside
So some comments on the intertubes claim that DoD ok'd use of it's
unadvertized space on private networks. Is there any official reference
that may support this statement that anyone of you have seen out there?
--Andrey
Even if they did OK it (which i doubt), actually using it - especially in a
public/customer facing / visible deployment - is a Bad Idea.
*Traceability fail and possibly creating unreachable networks out there ...*
/TJ
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Andrey Khomyakov
khomyakov.and...@gmail.com
I am on sprint and my ip is always in the 20. net even though my wan up is
totally different.
Grant
On Wednesday, July 18, 2012, TJ wrote:
Even if they did OK it (which i doubt), actually using it - especially in a
public/customer facing / visible deployment - is a Bad Idea.
*Traceability
Cc: Nanog
Subject: Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT
Even if they did OK it (which i doubt), actually using it - especially in a
public/customer facing / visible deployment - is a Bad Idea.
*Traceability fail and possibly creating unreachable networks out
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
So much for next generation technology ...
CB
On Jul 17, 2012 7:54 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
So much for next generation technology ...
No IPv6, and using duplicate IPv4 space. #sigh #fail
/TJ
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Cameron Byrne wrote:
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
Short-sighted and foolish. Shame on you, Sprint.
jms
13 matches
Mail list logo
