And what about 0.0.0.0/8?
--
Eduardo Schoedler
2015-06-17 18:21 GMT-03:00 Luan Nguyen luan.ngu...@dimensiondata.com:
Cisco IOS-XE Fails
ip add 241.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
Not a valid host address - 241.1.1.1
ip route 241.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.10.10.1
%Invalid destination prefix
XR-OS : fails
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 05:07:25PM -0400, Luan Nguyen wrote:
Is that safe to use [240.0.0.0/4] internally? Anyone using it? Just
for NATTING on Cisco gears...
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 06:30:04PM -0300, Eduardo Schoedler wrote:
And what about 0.0.0.0/8?
On both counts: NO. I always assume
In message
CAD6AjGSBfy_RH9J_T2yY32=vqH=19jbel+gsnb4nn_pijv+...@mail.gmail.com, Ca By
writes:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com
javascript:; wrote:
I'll wait for Curran to pop up with various
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll wait for Curran to pop up with various links to reasons why Class E was
abandoned by ARIN. (short answer: too much broken crap thinks it's
multicast!)
Hi Ricky,
You may be confused. ARIN never possessed class E; it's
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com
javascript:; wrote:
I'll wait for Curran to pop up with various links to reasons why Class E
was
abandoned by ARIN. (short answer: too much broken crap thinks it's
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:38:32 -0400, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
You may be confused. ARIN never possessed class E; it's held in
reserve by IETF. As much as I enjoy a good ARIN bashing, they and John
Curran are quite faultless here.
Quote-unquote, as in they didn't even bother *even
Not used in the sense you imagine, but I designed a hack where we hash IPv6
addresses into 224/3 (class D and E space) so backends that don't support
IPv6 can still be provided a pseudo-IP. This accelerated support of IPv6
across all Google services without needing to wait for each individual
Probably fine to NAT it yourself until it is allocated and someone starts
using it.
Why not just use RFC1918 space?
https://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?docid=1JEgabzMOJx1l25zHZK5wv4_Tn9KRsyDGgSq-M4g
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:07:25 -0400, Luan Nguyen lngu...@opsource.net
wrote:
Is that safe to use internally? Anyone using it?
Just for NATTING on Cisco gears...
As you've already figured out, Class E space is still restricted on Cisco
gear.
I'll wait for Curran to pop up with various links
You'll find as well, a lot of hosts (eg, I know at least Windows XP)
won't forward to Class E destinations.
-Tom
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
There is already more than enough address space allocated for NAT, you
don't need to start using random prefixes
Is that safe to use internally? Anyone using it?
Just for NATTING on Cisco gears...
There is already more than enough address space allocated for NAT, you
don't need to start using random prefixes that may or may not be needed for
other purposes in the future.
For all we know, tomorrow someone could write an RFC requesting an address
reserved for local anycast DNS and it could
range.I would most
definitely not recommend 240.0.0.0
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luan Nguyen
Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2015 9:07 a.m.
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4
Is that safe to use internally? Anyone using
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Luan Nguyen lngu...@opsource.net wrote:
Is that safe to use internally? Anyone using it?
Just for NATTING on Cisco gears...
most things, including most cisco gear, will not forward those Class E
packets or accept Class E as a valid address
If you have
Use 100.64.0.0/10, this is the CGNAT reserved range.I would most definitely not
recommend 240.0.0.0
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luan Nguyen
Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2015 9:07 a.m.
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4
Cisco IOS-XE Fails
ip add 241.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
Not a valid host address - 241.1.1.1
ip route 241.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.10.10.1
%Invalid destination prefix
XR-OS : fails
Can take the IP on a interface, but cant route it
IOS fails
we used up all the reserved ip blocks including the 169.254 and the
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, Jonas Björk mr.jonas.bj...@me.com wrote:
Given how slowly IPv6 is deploying, this choice may prove to have been
shortsighted.
I doubt it. As you said, there is A LOT of crap out there that would
have to be updated. Pulling a number out of the air, I'd guess
IIRC, the short answer why it wasn't repurposed as additional unicast
addresses was that too much deployed gear has it hardcoded as
reserved, future functionality unknown, do not use. Following an
instruction to repurpose 240/4 as unicast addresses, such gear would
not receive new firmware or
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:17:53 -0400, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02
Proposed and denied. Please stop this line and spend your efforts on ipv6
By APNIC. Cisco did, too, btw. And they weren't first, either. Nor is this
going to be the last
No, we examined this back in 2007. See your favorite cache site
for http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/240-e
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / CotSG / Usenix / NANOG
On Wednesday, June 17, 2015, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:38:32 -0400, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
You may be confused. ARIN never possessed class E; it's held in
reserve by IETF. As much as I enjoy a good ARIN bashing, they and John
Curran are quite
Given how slowly IPv6 is deploying, this choice may prove to have been
shortsighted.
I doubt it. As you said, there is A LOT of crap out there that would have to
be updated. Pulling a number out of the air, I'd guess *most* in-use devices
would NEVER see such an update. Even from
How many devices need IPs? Is there a reason ARIN can't be used?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Jun 17, 2015 10:18 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
IIRC, the short answer why it wasn't repurposed as additional unicast
23 matches
Mail list logo
