Re: IPv6 woes - RFC

[Jim Young via NANOG]

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 21:55 Chris Adams  wrote: 

> More than once, I've had to explain why zero-filling octets, like
> 127.000.000.001 (which still works) or 008.008.008.008 (which does not),
> is broken.

Zero filling IPv4 is just evil. How about this party trick?

> % ping -c 1 010.010.010.010
> PING 010.010.010.010 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=0 ttl=116 time=27.496 ms
> 
> --- 010.010.010.010 ping statistics ---
> 1 packets transmitted, 1 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 27.496/27.496/27.496/0.000 ms
% 

Re: DoD IP Space

[Jim Young via NANOG]

> On  Wednesday, January 20, 2021 13:48, Owen DeLong <...> wrote:
> 
> Do you think this still holds true if DoD were to (e.g.) sell that space
> to $CLOUD_PROVIDER or $ISP or $SUPPLIER or…?
> 
> I don’t have any knowledge of any events surrounding this space
> currently, but I do know that press releases and congress have
> discussed that possibility, so it cannot be ruled out.

There's this old blog post from 2010: T-Mobile: Clever or Insane?

https://blog.wireshark.org/2010/04/t-mobile-clever-or-insane/

Best regards,

Jim Y.