On 3/8/10 1:53 PM, keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote:
As with most other "dirty" address ranges these will inevitably be
used for something. It's just a fact of life as IPv4 space becomes
more and more scarce. For example APNIC has begun assigning addresses
in the previously reserved and often hijacked 1.0/8 range.
1/8 assignments were made 4 years ago (1/8 and 27/8 were assigned to
apnic on jan 2010)
regarding 240/4 I'm pretty sure that's been a feature request for a
while.I probably wouldn't put those on any interface facing hosts.
-----<juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net> wrote: -----
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
From: Chuck Anderson <c...@wpi.edu>
Sent by: <juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net>
Date: 03/08/2010 04:08PM
Subject: [j-nsp] Class E IP addresses
From 9.6 release notes:
Class E addresses—The JUNOS Software now allows Class E addresses
to be
configured on interfaces. To allow Class E addresses to be
configured on
interfaces, remove the Class E prefix from the list of martian
addresses by
including the [edit routing-options martians 240/4 orlonger allow]
configuration
statement.
Whoa. What is the use of this? While it sounds like a neat idea to
reclaim Class E for actual use in this age of IPv4 depletion, the
idea
loses its appeal once you realize the huge numbers of legacy devices
that won't want to have anything to do with Class E.
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
