On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:11:42 -0400, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net
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
folk should remember that ARIN publishes an RSS feed of
allocations/deallocations...
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-issued/2012-August/001348.html
(well, a mailing-list which has an rss feed... which reader.google
seems to like just fine...)
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Otis L.
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
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 arin.net
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
You can do a whois
On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net 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
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/rest/org/SIS
On Aug 23, 2012, at 08:26 , Otis L. Surratt, Jr. o...@ocosa.com 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
On 8/23/12 7:18 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net 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
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
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
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
Owen DeLong wrote:
ATT 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
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 r...@maine.edu wrote:
Funny,
Saw this post come through this morning; then got call today for ASA
configuration help ... I
On 8/23/12 2:11 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
ATT 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
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
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
whois on 172.0.0.0 will tell you
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. o...@ocosa.com 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,
On 8/23/2012 1:29 AM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
Dan,
Can you provide a link to support this?
http://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=172.0.0.0?showDetails=true
If this is true, I wonder how this will work.
Otis
-Original Message-
From: Dan White [mailto:dwh...@olp.net]
Sent:
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 ATT Internet
Services.
Why shouldn't it work? RFC1918 space is 172.16/12, there's no
I've been working too long.in my mind I was seeing 127.0.0.0 which I
was like wow a violation.
-Original Message-
From: Willy Wong [mailto:willy...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:32 AM
To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr.
Cc: Dan White; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 172.0.0.0/12
You can do a whois search at arin.net to see the allocation.
172.0.0.0/12 is often confused with the private 172.16.0.0/12 address
space, which I would consider a 'scraping the bottom of the barrel'
allocation.
I also noticed a couple of subnets in that range showing up in the weekly
Cidr
owen.delong.com:owen /home4/owen (102) % whois -h whois.arin.net 172.0.0.0
[Querying whois.arin.net]
[whois.arin.net]
#
# Query terms are ambiguous. The query is assumed to be:
# n 172.0.0.0
#
# Use ? to get help.
#
#
# The following results may also be obtained via:
#
Why do you think it doesn't work?
Отправлено с iPhone
23.08.2012, в 9:29, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. o...@ocosa.com написал(а):
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]
On Aug 22, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Dan White dwh...@olp.net 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
On 8/23/12, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu 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 ATT Internet
Services.
Why shouldn't it work? RFC1918 space is 172.16/12, there's no overlap.
I know that,
. 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 arin.net
27 matches
Mail list logo
