On 3/18/10 8:52 AM, Jaren Angerbauer wrote:
Hi all,
I have a client here in the US, that I just discovered is using a host
of private IPs that (as I understand) belong to APNIC (i.e.
1.7.154.70, 1.7.154.00-99, etc.) for their web servers.
Actually, those are public IPs. The 1/8 block is
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:48:52 -0600
Tom Ammon tom.am...@utah.edu wrote:
RFC1918 is a good place to start ;)
Most of the issues in
Deprecating Site Local Addresses
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3879.txt
identified in IPv6 Site-Local addressing also apply to
duplicated/overlapping IPv4
It sounds like this range was just recently assigned -- is there any
document (RFC?) or source I could look through to learn more about
this, and/or provide evidence to my client
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
Thanks,
Jaren
--
On 2010-03-18 19:35, Jared Mauch wrote:
http://www.google.com/search?q=1.2.3.4+site%3Acisco.com
I know that the University of Michigan utilize 1.2.3.4 for their
captive portal login/logout pages as recently as monday when I was
on the medical campus.
A lot of cheap, low-end devices
On 19/03/2010 06:04, Matt Shadbolt wrote:
I once had a customer who for some reason had all their printers on public
addresses they didn't own. Not advertising them outside, but internally
whenever a user browsed to a external site that happened to be one of the
addresses used, they would just
On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 14:50 -0400, Daniel Senie wrote:
As you note, debugging this type of thing is often not intuitive, as
everything appears to work from almost everywhere
I got curious yesterday and set off a couple (very slow {option -T0},
very polite, very restrictive) nmap single port
On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 06:08 +, gordon b slater wrote:
It looks like chaos-squared out there. I don't envy anyone fathoming
that stuff out for real.
clarification: `chaos` due to our ISP running internal boxes on the
range in question, rather than external chaos.
The implication being: if
I love war stories. I once got chewed out by a colleague ? from
another organization because we were using their address space.
We were using 10.0.0.0/8. Explanation of NAT and RFC1918 was met with
a deer in the headlights look.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Matt Shadbolt
Chuck - Very true...
What about the time our old manager (MARTIN) gave your old organization that
Entire Class B
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Charles Mills w3y...@gmail.com wrote:
I love war stories. I once got chewed out by a colleague ? from
another organization because we were
Hi all,
I have a client here in the US, that I just discovered is using a host
of private IPs that (as I understand) belong to APNIC (i.e.
1.7.154.70, 1.7.154.00-99, etc.) for their web servers. I'm assuming
that the addresses probably nat to a [US] public IP. I'm not familiar
enough with the
I have a client here in the US, that I just discovered is using a host
of private IPs that (as I understand) belong to APNIC (i.e.
1.7.154.70, 1.7.154.00-99, etc.) for their web servers.
Those aren't private IPs .. (in the RFC1918 sense) .. those are public
IPs. They just weren't assigned
1.0.0.0/8 is NOT private address space and never was.
It was an arbitrary mis-use by your customer of space which is now
part of the APNIC pool of addresses to issue in response to requests
for new globally unique addresses.
The result for your customer is that they've gotten away with treating
On 3/18/2010 11:22, Jaren Angerbauer wrote:
It sounds like this range was just recently assigned -- is there any
document (RFC?) or source I could look through to learn more about
this, and/or provide evidence to my client?
See related traffic on this list, for openers.
--
Democracy: Three
Are they using them only within their domain(s), and ARIN addresses outside, or
are they advertising them to their upstream(s) to be readvertised into the
backbone?
If they are using them internally and NAT'ing to the outside, they're not
hurting themselves or anyone else. I would personally
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 09:34:47AM -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
Are they using them only within their domain(s), and ARIN addresses outside,
or are they advertising them to their upstream(s) to be readvertised into the
backbone?
If they are using them internally and NAT'ing to the outside,
RFC1918 is a good place to start ;)
On 3/18/2010 10:22 AM, Jaren Angerbauer wrote:
Thanks all for the on / off list responses on this. I acknowledge I'm
playing in territory I'm not familiar with, and was a bad idea to jump
to the conclusion that this range was private. I made that assumption
Excerpts from Jaren Angerbauer's message of Thu Mar 18 09:22:40 -0700 2010:
Thanks all for the on / off list responses on this. I acknowledge I'm
playing in territory I'm not familiar with, and was a bad idea to jump
to the conclusion that this range was private. I made that assumption
On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
Are they using them only within their domain(s), and ARIN addresses outside,
or are they advertising them to their upstream(s) to be readvertised into the
backbone?
If they are using them internally and NAT'ing to the outside, they're not
On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
Are they using them only within their domain(s), and ARIN addresses outside,
or are they advertising them to their upstream(s) to be readvertised into
the backbone?
If they are using them
On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
Are they using them only within their domain(s), and ARIN addresses outside,
or are they advertising them to their upstream(s) to be readvertised into
the backbone?
If they are using them
On 3/18/10 2:35 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Does anyone know if the University of Michigan or Cisco are going be updating
their systems and documentation to no longer use 1.2.3.4 ?
http://www.google.com/search?q=1.2.3.4+site%3Acisco.com
I know that the University of Michigan utilize 1.2.3.4 for
On 3/18/2010 14:30, William Allen Simpson wrote:
On 3/18/10 2:35 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Does anyone know if the University of Michigan or Cisco are going be
updating their systems and documentation to no longer use 1.2.3.4 ?
http://www.google.com/search?q=1.2.3.4+site%3Acisco.com
I know
I once had a customer who for some reason had all their printers on public
addresses they didn't own. Not advertising them outside, but internally
whenever a user browsed to a external site that happened to be one of the
addresses used, they would just receive a HP or Konica login page :)
They
23 matches
Mail list logo
