Even if Fairpoint was doing Carrier Grade NAT there is a separate address space for that (100.64.0.0/10) per RCF 6598. They shouldn't even have 10.0.0.0/8 in their public routing tables even if they are using this internally. Any decent ISPs should be filtering the private address space from crossing their network.
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 01:10:53 -0500 John Abreau <j...@blu.org> wrote: > 10.255.255.10 is in the 10.0.0.0/8 private address range, which is not > routed > across the public Internet. Therefore the bad server must have been local > to > whatever local network you were connected to at the time. > > I'm assuming that Fairpoint has not decided to implement NAT at the ISP > layer > instead of doing a proper IPv6 rollout.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
