Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

2015-10-27 Thread Adam Moffett 

That's what's implied in the Wikipedia article.

On 10/27/2015 12:32 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Since these addresses aren't supposed to be used for normal internal 
NAT, they really shouldn't go into bridge mode if they see one... I'm 
guessing they don't look for anything other than RFC1918 addresses.


On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, George Skorup > wrote:


I just had a light bulb come on over my head about this. Will
routers that like to change to bridge/switch/AP mode if they see a
private address on the WAN port NOT do that if we hand out this range?

Here's my thought. We're contemplating changing our Canopy SMs
from bridge to NAT w/ DMZ and configure them to hand out only one
address via DHCP. Since the address pool size will be only one
address, if these stupid routers go into bridge mode, only the
router itself is going to get that address and none of the
customer's other devices will work.

This isn't your typical RFC1918-type address space, so I have to
wonder

On 10/26/2015 10:58 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

I know, I just thought it was interesting that they didn't. If we
were still doing NAT I'd be using it.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:50 PM, George Skorup
> wrote:

Nothing says they have to use it.

On 10/26/2015 10:11 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

Interesting... I just checked my phone (US cellular) and
it's got a 10.x.x.x address... and no IPv6.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, George Skorup
> wrote:

I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4
address will be in that range. It is on my Vz Android
phone. IIRC, that was specifically set aside for CGN. I
suppose we could also use it for our NAT mode CPEs.


On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

Apparently 100.64.0.0/10  was
set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a WAN address
that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's
LAN address.  Am I the last one to notice?

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

2015-10-26 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm 
I saw this the other day but figured it was above my pay grade

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
>
> Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a WAN
> address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.  Am
> I the last one to notice?
>
>
>


-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

2015-10-26 Thread George Skorup 
I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4 address will be in 
that range. It is on my Vz Android phone. IIRC, that was specifically 
set aside for CGN. I suppose we could also use it for our NAT mode CPEs.


On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a 
WAN address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN 
address.  Am I the last one to notice?

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

2015-10-26 Thread Josh Luthman 
Vzw is that private v4.  v6 enabled.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Oct 26, 2015 11:11 PM, "Mathew Howard"  wrote:

> Interesting... I just checked my phone (US cellular) and it's got a
> 10.x.x.x address... and no IPv6.
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>
>> I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4 address will be in that
>> range. It is on my Vz Android phone. IIRC, that was specifically set aside
>> for CGN. I suppose we could also use it for our NAT mode CPEs.
>>
>>
>> On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
>>>
>>> Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a
>>> WAN address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.
>>> Am I the last one to notice?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

2015-10-26 Thread Mathew Howard 
Interesting... I just checked my phone (US cellular) and it's got a
10.x.x.x address... and no IPv6.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4 address will be in that
> range. It is on my Vz Android phone. IIRC, that was specifically set aside
> for CGN. I suppose we could also use it for our NAT mode CPEs.
>
>
> On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
>>
>> Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a
>> WAN address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.
>> Am I the last one to notice?
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

2015-10-26 Thread Mathew Howard 
Since these addresses aren't supposed to be used for normal internal NAT,
they really shouldn't go into bridge mode if they see one... I'm guessing
they don't look for anything other than RFC1918 addresses.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> I just had a light bulb come on over my head about this. Will routers that
> like to change to bridge/switch/AP mode if they see a private address on
> the WAN port NOT do that if we hand out this range?
>
> Here's my thought. We're contemplating changing our Canopy SMs from bridge
> to NAT w/ DMZ and configure them to hand out only one address via DHCP.
> Since the address pool size will be only one address, if these stupid
> routers go into bridge mode, only the router itself is going to get that
> address and none of the customer's other devices will work.
>
> This isn't your typical RFC1918-type address space, so I have to wonder
>
> On 10/26/2015 10:58 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> I know, I just thought it was interesting that they didn't. If we were
> still doing NAT I'd be using it.
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:50 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>
>> Nothing says they have to use it.
>>
>> On 10/26/2015 10:11 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> Interesting... I just checked my phone (US cellular) and it's got a
>> 10.x.x.x address... and no IPv6.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, George Skorup 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4 address will be in
>>> that range. It is on my Vz Android phone. IIRC, that was specifically set
>>> aside for CGN. I suppose we could also use it for our NAT mode CPEs.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>>
 
 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

 Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a
 WAN address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.
 Am I the last one to notice?



>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

2015-10-26 Thread Josh Luthman 
I think it was discussed here a while back...


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
>
> Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a WAN
> address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.  Am
> I the last one to notice?
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

2015-10-26 Thread Ken Hohhof 

Am I the last one to notice?


Maybe.

-Original Message- 
From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 8:14 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012? 


https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a 
WAN address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN 
address.  Am I the last one to notice?

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

2015-10-26 Thread Rhys Cuff (Latrobe I.T) 
Hmmm, I think you were second last :-S



-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Tuesday, 27 October 2015 1:19 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

> Am I the last one to notice?

Maybe.

-Original Message-
From: Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 8:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012? 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a WAN 
address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.  Am I 
the last one to notice?

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

2015-10-26 Thread George Skorup 

Nothing says they have to use it.

On 10/26/2015 10:11 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Interesting... I just checked my phone (US cellular) and it's got a 
10.x.x.x address... and no IPv6.


On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, George Skorup > wrote:


I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4 address will be
in that range. It is on my Vz Android phone. IIRC, that was
specifically set aside for CGN. I suppose we could also use it for
our NAT mode CPEs.


On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

Apparently 100.64.0.0/10  was set aside
for ISP NAT so we can assign a WAN address that was guaranteed
not to collide with anybody's LAN address. Am I the last one
to notice?

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

2015-10-26 Thread Mathew Howard 
I know, I just thought it was interesting that they didn't. If we were
still doing NAT I'd be using it.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:50 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> Nothing says they have to use it.
>
> On 10/26/2015 10:11 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> Interesting... I just checked my phone (US cellular) and it's got a
> 10.x.x.x address... and no IPv6.
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>
>> I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4 address will be in that
>> range. It is on my Vz Android phone. IIRC, that was specifically set aside
>> for CGN. I suppose we could also use it for our NAT mode CPEs.
>>
>>
>> On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
>>>
>>> Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 was set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a
>>> WAN address that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.
>>> Am I the last one to notice?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] More private address space was created in 2012?

2015-10-26 Thread George Skorup 
I just had a light bulb come on over my head about this. Will routers 
that like to change to bridge/switch/AP mode if they see a private 
address on the WAN port NOT do that if we hand out this range?


Here's my thought. We're contemplating changing our Canopy SMs from 
bridge to NAT w/ DMZ and configure them to hand out only one address via 
DHCP. Since the address pool size will be only one address, if these 
stupid routers go into bridge mode, only the router itself is going to 
get that address and none of the customer's other devices will work.


This isn't your typical RFC1918-type address space, so I have to wonder

On 10/26/2015 10:58 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
I know, I just thought it was interesting that they didn't. If we were 
still doing NAT I'd be using it.


On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:50 PM, George Skorup > wrote:


Nothing says they have to use it.

On 10/26/2015 10:11 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

Interesting... I just checked my phone (US cellular) and it's got
a 10.x.x.x address... and no IPv6.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, George Skorup
> wrote:

I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4 address
will be in that range. It is on my Vz Android phone. IIRC,
that was specifically set aside for CGN. I suppose we could
also use it for our NAT mode CPEs.


On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT

Apparently 100.64.0.0/10  was set
aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a WAN address that was
guaranteed not to collide with anybody's LAN address.  Am
I the last one to notice?