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 addres

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

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 c

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 cellu

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

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

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 specifical

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 htt

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? Ma

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

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 > > Apparent

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