On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:05:51 +1100
Mark Andrews wrote:
> Almost everything you buy today works with IPv6. Even the crappy $50 home
> router does IPv6.
You're testing very different gear than I am. I have not found
this to be true, and I look harder than most.
I put every new
> On 12 Feb 2021, at 08:11, Jim Shankland wrote:
>
> On 2/11/21 6:29 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2021, at 05:55 , Izaac wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 04:04:43AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
without creating partitioned networks.
>>> Ridiculous. Why would you establi
On 2/11/21 6:29 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 11, 2021, at 05:55 , Izaac wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 04:04:43AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
without creating partitioned networks.
Ridiculous. Why would you establish such a criteria? The defining
characteristic of rfc1918 networks is that
- On Feb 11, 2021, at 9:15 AM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
Hi,
You're right and wrong.
> You don't, you wastefully assign a /24 to every unique thing that you think
> needs an internal management IP block (even if there's 5 things that answer
> pings there),
Reword that to: in the late 1990s, so
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 6:13 AM Izaac wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:38:00AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> > None whatsoever. You just have to be really big.
>
> Hi Beel,
That was unnecessary. Sorry I used an S instead of a Z.
> Thanks for backing me up with an example of an organization w
You don't, you wastefully assign a /24 to every unique thing that you think
needs an internal management IP block (even if there's 5 things that answer
pings there), and decide it's too much work to renumber things. Easy for a
big ISP that's also acquired many small/mid-sized ISPs to run out of v4
On 2/11/21 16:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
Ridiculous… TCP/IP was designed to be a peer to peer system where each endpoint
was uniquely
addressable whether reachable by policy or not.
IPv6 restores that ability and RFC-1918 is a bandaid for an obsolete protocol.
Stop making excuses and let’s fix
> On Feb 11, 2021, at 05:55 , Izaac wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 04:04:43AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> without creating partitioned networks.
>
> Ridiculous. Why would you establish such a criteria? The defining
> characteristic of rfc1918 networks is that they are partitioned.
>
>
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:38:00AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> None whatsoever. You just have to be really big.
Hi Beel,
Thanks for backing me up with an example of an organization with
competent network engineering. Their ability to almost infinitely
leverage the existing rfc1918 address spa
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 04:04:43AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> without creating partitioned networks.
Ridiculous. Why would you establish such a criteria? The defining
characteristic of rfc1918 networks is that they are partitioned.
The ability to recognize and exploit partitions within a netwo
> On Feb 10, 2021, at 09:50 , Doug Barton wrote:
>
> On 2/10/21 5:56 AM, Ca By wrote>
>> The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely
>> address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a celluar), it is
>> ipv6-only, afaik.
>
> So that answers the questio
> On Feb 10, 2021, at 06:11 , Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
> Ca By writes:
>
>> The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely
>> address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a celluar), it is
>> ipv6-only, afaik.
>
> I certainly agree that this is easier and mak
> On Feb 10, 2021, at 04:29 , Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
>> Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918
>> without running out of
>> addresses and without creating partitioned networks.
>
> OK.. I'll bite. W
On 2/10/21 19:50, Doug Barton wrote:
I also reject the premise that any org, no matter how large, needs to
uniquely number every endpoint. When I was doing IPAM for a living,
not allowing the workstations in Tucson to talk to the printers in
Singapore was considered a feature.
Preventin
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 12:30 PM Izaac wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:47:32PM +0100, Cynthia Revström via NANOG wrote:
> > certain large corporations that have run out of RFC1918, etc. space
>
> At what level of incompetence must an organization operate to squander
> roughly 70,000 /24 networ
On 2/10/21 5:56 AM, Ca By wrote>
The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely
address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a celluar), it
is ipv6-only, afaik.
So that answers the question of how to scale networks past what can be
done with 1918 space. Al
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 6:11 AM Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Ca By writes:
>
> > The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely
> > address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a celluar), it is
> > ipv6-only, afaik.
>
> I certainly agree that this is easier and makes
Ca By writes:
> The 3 cellular networks in the usa, 100m subs each, use ipv6 to uniquely
> address customers. And in the case of ims (telephony on a celluar), it is
> ipv6-only, afaik.
I certainly agree that this is easier and makes more sense. I just
don't buy the "can't be done" wrt using rfc
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:50 AM Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Ca By writes:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 4:32 AM Valdis Klētnieks <
> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> >> > Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with
>
Ca By writes:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 4:32 AM Valdis Klētnieks
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
>> > Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918
>> without running out of
>> > addresses and without creating partitioned networks.
>
Owen DeLong writes:
> Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918
> without running out of
> addresses and without creating partitioned networks.
>
> If you can’t, then I’m not the one making excuses.
You added "without ..." and did not explain why. This does look
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 4:32 AM Valdis Klētnieks
wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> > Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918
> without running out of
> > addresses and without creating partitioned networks.
>
> OK.. I'll bite. What
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 04:04:43 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918
> without running out of
> addresses and without creating partitioned networks.
OK.. I'll bite. What network design needs 40M endpoints and can't tolerate
partitioned
Please explain to me how you uniquely number 40M endpoints with RFC-1918
without running out of
addresses and without creating partitioned networks.
If you can’t, then I’m not the one making excuses.
Owen
> On Feb 9, 2021, at 15:44 , Izaac wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 02:36:57PM -0800,
On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 02:36:57PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> it is definitely possible to run out of RFC-1918 space with scale and no
> incompetence.
No, it isn't. It's the year 2021. Stop making excuses.
--
. ___ ___ . . ___
. \/ |\ |\ \
. _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__
> On Jan 22, 2021, at 10:28 PM, Valdis Klētnieks
> wrote:
>
> And how would you define "fully implement v6", anyhow?
I would define it this way: if something can be done using IPv4, it has an
obvious IPv6 counterpart that is usable by the same community to the extent
that the community is i
On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 17:25:34 -0800, Doug Barton said:
> I am genuinely curious, how would you explain the problem, and describe
> a solution, to an almost exclusively non-technical audience who just
> wants to get the bits flowing again?
"The people who did Disney's software wrote it for the Inter
Owen,
I am genuinely curious, how would you explain the problem, and describe
a solution, to an almost exclusively non-technical audience who just
wants to get the bits flowing again?
Doug
(still not speaking for anyone other than myself)
On 2/5/21 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
At the bottom
ROTFL! I’m sorry, but the imagery of people paying rent for a piece of Randy’s
mind is just too much :)
> On Jan 21, 2021, at 14:22 , Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>> I’m sure we all remember Y2k (well, most of us, there could be some
>>> young-uns on the list). That day was happening whether we wanted
WebOS implemented IPv6 in 3.8 IIRC.
Owen
> On Jan 22, 2021, at 15:30 , Doug Barton wrote:
>
> The KB indicates that the problem is with the "LG TV WebOS 3.8 or above."
>
> Doug
>
> (not speaking for any employers, current or former)
>
>
> On 1/22/21 12:42 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> Disney
His example may have included incompetence. However, it takes longer, but
it is definitely possible to run out of RFC-1918 space with scale and no
incompetence.
No rational network will ever be able to put every single /32 endpoint on a
host, but
I know of several networks that have come darn cl
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG On Behalf Of
> Mark Andrews
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 7:45 PM
> To: Sabri Berisha
> Cc: nanog
> Subject: Re: DoD IP Space
>
> IPv6 doesn’t need a hard date. It is coming, slowly, but it is comin
> On Jan 21, 2021, at 14:22 , Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>> I’m sure we all remember Y2k (well, most of us, there could be some
>>> young-uns on the list). That day was happening whether we wanted it to
>>> or not. It was an unchangeable, unmovable deadline.
>>
>> but i thought 3gpp was gong to for
> Doug Barton
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 5:30 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: DoD IP Space
>
> The KB indicates that the problem is with the "LG TV WebOS 3.8 or above."
>
> Doug
>
> (not speaking for any employers, current or former)
>
>
I have personally seen the issue with streaming from a Samsung cell phone and
the Disney+ app to a Google chrome cast and a regular not-smart TV.
Travis
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Doug
Barton
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 5:30 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: DoD
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 11:20:47AM -0800, Sabri Berisha wrote:
> You don't need to patronize me. I'm merely explaining the real life realities
> of
> working in a large enterprise.
Patronize you? Ohh, heavens no! I fully intend to use your replies as
educational material. Why, I've passed them
- On Jan 22, 2021, at 10:28 PM, Valdis Klētnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
wrote:
Hi,
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:07:42 -0800, Sabri Berisha said:
>> Financial incentives also work. Perhaps we can convince Mr. Biden to give a
>> .5%
>> tax cut to corporations that fully implement v6. That will c
- On Jan 22, 2021, at 4:50 PM, Izaac iz...@setec.org wrote:
Hi,
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 03:43:43PM -0800, Sabri Berisha wrote:
>> TL;DR: in theory, I agree with you 100%. In practice, that stuff just doesn't
>> work.
>
> Well thanks for sharing. I think we've all learned a lot.
You don'
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:07:42 -0800, Sabri Berisha said:
> Financial incentives also work. Perhaps we can convince Mr. Biden to give a
> .5%
> tax cut to corporations that fully implement v6. That will create some bonus
> targets.
And how would you define "fully implement v6", anyhow?
Case in poi
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 03:43:43PM -0800, Sabri Berisha wrote:
> No, but the NOC that sits in between does need to access both. Sure, you can
A single NOC sitting in the middle of a single address space. I believe
I'm detecting an architectural paradigm on the order of "bouncy castle."
Tell me,
An embarrassing mistake. I'm not a computer and don't count from zero. It is,
of course, at 172.18.7.12:2239 and not 11.
Jan 22, 2021 18:01:15 Izaac :
> We can SSH to the 39th host at: 172.18.7.11:2239
- On Jan 22, 2021, at 2:42 PM, Izaac iz...@setec.org wrote:
Hi,
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 01:03:15PM -0800, Sabri Berisha wrote:
>> TL;DR: a combination of scale and incompetence means you can run out of 10/8
>> really quick.
>
> Indeed. Thank you for providing a demonstration of my point.
The KB indicates that the problem is with the "LG TV WebOS 3.8 or above."
Doug
(not speaking for any employers, current or former)
On 1/22/21 12:42 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Disney should hire some proper developers and QA team.
RFC 1123 instructed developers to make sure your products handled
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 01:03:15PM -0800, Sabri Berisha wrote:
> TL;DR: a combination of scale and incompetence means you can run out of 10/8
> really quick.
Indeed. Thank you for providing a demonstration of my point.
I'd question the importance of having an console on target in Singapore
be ab
On 1/22/21 6:09 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
V6 Adoption always is, and always will be, metered by time, money and
resources. Everybody kicks the can on things like this until they
can't anymore.
-
I have always said the management chooses this. It's a cost-only
t
On 1/21/21 4:29 PM, Travis Garrison wrote:
What's all your opinion when company's such as Disney actively recommend
disabling IPv6? They are presenting it as IPv6 is blocking their app.
https://help.disneyplus.com/csp?id=csp_article_content&sys_kb_id=c91af021dbe46850b03cc58a139619ed
---
- On Jan 22, 2021, at 12:28 PM, Izaac iz...@setec.org wrote:
Hi,
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:47:32PM +0100, Cynthia Revström via NANOG wrote:
>> certain large corporations that have run out of RFC1918, etc. space
>
> At what level of incompetence must an organization operate to squander
> r
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 03:44:34PM -0500, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
> You mean like Rogers?
Smashing example. They've got fewer than 4 million subscribers (only
about a million of them being Internet), and yet they have somehow gone
through over 17 million addresses?
"Ohh no! Quick! Let's abando
e ready, just trying to work through the few
>> issues like this one.
>>
>> https://help.disneyplus.com/csp?id=csp_article_content&sys_kb_id=c91af021dbe46850b03cc58a139619ed
>>
>> Thank you
>> Travis
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Mes
You mean like Rogers?
https://communityforums.rogers.com/t5/Internet/Why-is-my-first-hop-on-a-trace-route-to-the-United-States/td-p/30382
At 03:28 PM 22/01/2021, Izaac wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:47:32PM +0100, Cynthia Revström via NANOG wrote:
> certain large corporations that have r
;
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG On Behalf Of
> Mark Andrews
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 7:45 PM
> To: Sabri Berisha
> Cc: nanog
> Subject: Re: DoD IP Space
>
> IPv6 doesn’t need a hard date. It is coming, slowly, but it is coming.
> Ev
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 02:47:32PM +0100, Cynthia Revström via NANOG wrote:
> certain large corporations that have run out of RFC1918, etc. space
At what level of incompetence must an organization operate to squander
roughly 70,000 /24 networks?
Or to do so and then decide, "You know what we real
Joe,
I haven't done that kind of work for a few years now, but I assume the
answer to your question in terms of hardware is still yes.
By and large the problem isn't hardware, it's finding the institutional
will to actually do the thing. That requires a lot of education,
creating or buying r
Randy,
In one sense I agree with you, but what I was reacting to was the idea
of an ISP begging IETF to reassign 22/8 as private space because their
customers won't migrate to IPv6. That's problematic for many reasons,
and causes the folks who aren't getting with the program to inflict the
pa
gt;
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG On Behalf
> Of Mark Andrews
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 7:45 PM
> To: Sabri Berisha
> Cc: nanog
> Subject: Re: DoD IP Space
>
> IPv6 doesn’t need a hard date. It is coming, slowly, but it is coming.
> Every d
ank you
Travis
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mark
Andrews
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 7:45 PM
To: Sabri Berisha
Cc: nanog
Subject: Re: DoD IP Space
IPv6 doesn’t need a hard date. It is coming, slowly, but it is coming.
Every data set says the same thing. It may not be comin
IPv6 doesn’t need a hard date. It is coming, slowly, but it is coming.
Every data set says the same thing. It may not be coming as fast as a lot
of us would want or actually think is reasonable as ISP’s are currently
being forced to deploy CGNs (NAT44 and NAT64) because there are laggards
that ar
>> I’m sure we all remember Y2k (well, most of us, there could be some
>> young-uns on the list). That day was happening whether we wanted it to
>> or not. It was an unchangeable, unmovable deadline.
>
> but i thought 3gpp was gong to force ipv6 adoption
let me try it a different way
why should
> I’m sure we all remember Y2k (well, most of us, there could be some
> young-uns on the list). That day was happening whether we wanted it to
> or not. It was an unchangeable, unmovable deadline.
but i thought 3gpp was gong to force ipv6 adoption
Organizations I have worked with for IPv6 transition, reduced CAPex and
OPex by leveraging the IT refresh cycle, and by ensuring there investment
included leveraging the USGv6 (
https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/usgv6-program) or IPv6Ready (
https://www.ipv6ready.org/) to mitigate the "We sell
That's a good one. Perhaps you don't live/work in the US and can be
excused for not knowing that US corporations don't pay taxes. In many
cases we subsidize them by giving tax credits to the point that the money
is flowing in the opposite direction entirely. It would be hard to give
them any more
- On Jan 21, 2021, at 6:40 AM, Andy Ringsmuth a...@andyring.com wrote:
Hi,
> I’m sure we all remember Y2k
Ah, yes. As a young IT consultant wearing a suit and tie (rofl), I upgraded many
bioses in many office buildings in the months leading up to it...
> I’d love to see a line in the concre
> On Jan 20, 2021, at 11:10 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> There have already been at least two lines in the sand that the IETF has
> backed down from. Is it even useful for us to keep saying "IPv6 is the way
> forward" any more?
Oh, I could not agree more. We need IETF or other powers-that-be
/ 44.0.0.0/8 is sad as well..
IPv4 will stay with us for very long
-- Original message --
From: Owen DeLong
To: Sabri Berisha
Cc: nanog , Grant Taylor
Subject: Re: DoD IP Space
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:15:32 -0800
Indeed It will be interesting to see how these CxOs with limited
Chris -
https://search.arin.net/rdap/?query=22.0.0.0 will provide a valid phone number
for technical & abuse matters.
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
On 21 Jan 2021, at 12:11 AM, John Lee
mailto:jllee9...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It is the DISA DOD NIC a
It is the DISA DOD NIC at:
https://disa.mil/About/Contact
Which will give you the DISA help desk phone number.
John Lee
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:57 AM Chris Knipe wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Except for the email on ARIN's details, does anyone else have a contact
> for the DoD?
>
> We are experienci
I used to help large companies rearchitect their addressing, implement
IPv6, etc. for a living, so no one is more sympathetic than I am about
how difficult it can be to make these changes. However, I have to ask,
how far backwards do we want to bend for those that refuse to migrate?
There have
> due to it being so massive and unused for so long, certain large
> corporations that have run out of RFC1918, etc. space have started
> using it internally.
i first saw that on a traceroute from my hotel at ripe bologna in 2001.
i was told i was lng late to finding it.
randy
> And don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating against v6. I'm merely explaining
> how
> difficult it can be to migrate. In most large companies, the network is like
> PG&E (the power utility California). If it works, nobody says well done. But
> if
> the power is out, everyone gets angry and asks
On 1/20/21 12:52 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2021, at 12:17 PM, Bryan Fields
> mailto:br...@bryanfields.net>> wrote:
>>
>> AFAIK IANA and the RIR's cannot enforce use of IP space assignments on any
>> network.
>
> While route hijacking isn't necessarily an ARIN issue, I will note
> tha
Additionally, examples of impersonating a corporate entity to acquire
unused IP space (Erie Forge and Steel's /16, anyone?) undoubtedly fall
under existing, pre-internet interstate commerce fraud laws...
http://web.mit.edu/net-security/Camp/2003/DBowie_IP_Hijacking.pdf
https://www.wired.com/image
Organizations that I have seen doing as you describe, because they ran out
of RFC1918 IP space, are also often using their existing private IP space
wastefully in the first place. Rather than using DoD /8s internally, if
they absolutely need to support v4-only equipment on their internal
management
- On Jan 20, 2021, at 6:58 AM, j k wrote:
Hi,
> My question becomes, what level of risk are these companies taking on by using
> the DoD ranges on their internal networks? And have they quantified the costs
> of this outage against moving to IPv6?
Not so long ago, while working for a large
> 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 r
On 1/20/21 1:48 PM, 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
> On Jan 20, 2021, at 07:11 , Brandon Martin wrote:
>
> On 1/20/21 9:58 AM, j k wrote:
>> My question becomes, what level of risk are these companies taking on by
>> using the DoD ranges on their internal networks? And have they quantified
>> the costs of this outage against moving to IPv6?
Brandon -
Agreed – the key phrase being "within a more limited scope” …
/John
> On 20 Jan 2021, at 1:26 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
>
> On 1/20/21 12:52 PM, John Curran wrote:
>>
>> While route hijacking isn't necessarily an ARIN issue, I will
>> note that several US law enforcement
On 1/20/21 12:52 PM, John Curran wrote:
>
> While route hijacking isn't necessarily an ARIN issue, I will note
> that several US law enforcement agencies (FBI & NCIS Cybercrime units) are
> quite interested in such events and do investigate them looking for criminal
> activity.
>
> (See
On 20 Jan 2021, at 12:17 PM, Bryan Fields
mailto:br...@bryanfields.net>> wrote:
AFAIK IANA and the RIR's cannot enforce use of IP space assignments on any
network.
While route hijacking isn't necessarily an ARIN issue, I will note
that several US law enforcement agencies (FBI & NCIS Cybercrim
On 1/20/21 10:05 AM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
> I am aware of some companies that have used parts of a DoD /8 internally to
> address devices in the field that are too old to ever support IPV6. Those
> devices also never interact with the public internet, and never will, so
> for them, I guess the only
Yeah, definitely talking about use that is deep behind multiple layers of
firewalls, or maybe even air-gapped with respect to routable protocols. I
won't say what sort of industry runs large piles of ancient gear, but you
could probably guess...
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:13 AM Brandon Martin
wr
I am aware of some companies that have used parts of a DoD /8 internally to
address devices in the field that are too old to ever support IPV6. Those
devices also never interact with the public internet, and never will, so
for them, I guess the only risk would be that some other internal system
th
I recently had a discussion with an Asian ISP that was asking the IETF to
PLEASE re-declare DoD space to be private space so that they could use it. This
particular ISP uses IPv6 extensively (a lot of their services are in fact
IPv6-only) but has trouble with its enterprise customers. Frankly, e
On 1/20/21 9:58 AM, j k wrote:
My question becomes, what level of risk are these companies taking on by
using the DoD ranges on their internal networks? And have they
quantified the costs of this outage against moving to IPv6?
Honestly I can't think of much unless maybe they're a defense contr
My question becomes, what level of risk are these companies taking on by
using the DoD ranges on their internal networks? And have they
quantified the costs of this outage against moving to IPv6?
Joe Klein
"inveniet viam, aut faciet" --- Seneca's Hercules Furens (Act II, Scene 1)
"*I skate to whe
Indeed.
/John
> On Jan 20, 2021, at 8:47 AM, Cynthia Revström wrote:
>
> But if you do this, make sure you keep track of where you might have put
> policies like this in, in case the DoD sells some the space or whatever in
> the future.
I believe the DoD space might be a bit of a difficult one, because (correct
me if I am wrong here) due to it being so massive and unused for so long,
certain large corporations that have run out of RFC1918, etc. space
have started using it internally.
So my take on it is, don't consider it as a bo
Tom –
Most definitely: lack of routing history is not at all a reliable indicator of
the potential for valid routing of a given IPv4 block in the future, so best
practice suggest that allocated address space should not be blocked by others
without specific cause.
Doing otherwise opens one up
Using the generally accepted definition of a bogon ( RFC 1918 / 5735 /
6598 + netblock not allocated by an RiR ), 22/8 is not a bogon and
shouldn't be treated as one.
The DoD does not announce it to the DFZ, as is their choice, but nothing
says they may not change that position tomorrow. There are
Peace,
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 4:55 PM David Conrad wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2019, at 10:56 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
>> This thread got me to wondering, is there any
>> legitimate reason to see 22/8 on the public
>> Internet? Or would it be okay to treat 22/8
>> like a Bogon and drop it at the
On Nov 4, 2019, at 10:56 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
> This thread got me to wondering, is there any legitimate reason to see 22/8
> on the public Internet? Or would it be okay to treat 22/8 like a Bogon and
> drop it at the network edge?
Given the transfer market for IPv4 addresses, the
On 11/4/19 1:55 AM, Chris Knipe wrote:
We are experiencing a situation with a 3rd party (direct peer), wanting
to advertise DoD address space to us, and we need to confirm whether
they are allowed to do so or not.
That sounds like someone is squatting on DoD IP space, likely for
something lik
Hi Everyone,
Thank you very much for all the information, suggestions, and feedback.
We have been contacted by the NCIS now, and will be discussing the matter
further with them.
I don't think I'm comfortable, or feel it is justified, to discuss this
matter further publicly. I now find myself in
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 10:55:47AM +0200, Chris Knipe wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Except for the email on ARIN's details, does anyone else have a contact for
> the DoD?
>
> We are experiencing a situation with a 3rd party (direct peer), wanting to
> advertise DoD address space to us, and we need to con
Yeah, check with the DoD NIC 100% of the time. Probably a pretty safe bet
that unless they are a US government agency, they're not authorized.
For anyone who did not attend NANOG last week, representatives from NCIS
and the FBI reminded the audience in no uncertain terms that "industry
standard sq
On 2019-11-04 13:33, Chris Knipe wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:13 PM Jason Biel wrote:
22/8 is actively used by DoD, just not publicly. It would be in your
best interest to not accept routes for it.
if you need something more official, contact the DoD NIC directly at
the email address speci
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:13 PM Jason Biel wrote:
> 22/8 is actively used by DoD, just not publicly. It would be in your best
> interest to not accept routes for it.
>
> if you need something more official, contact the DoD NIC directly at the
> email address specified in WHOIS.
>
>
Precisely what
22/8 is actively used by DoD, just not publicly. It would be in your best
interest to not accept routes for it.
if you need something more official, contact the DoD NIC directly at the
email address specified in WHOIS.
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:32 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04,
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 10:55:47AM +0200,
Chris Knipe wrote
a message of 35 lines which said:
> We are experiencing a situation with a 3rd party (direct peer),
> wanting to advertise DoD address space to us, and we need to confirm
> whether they are allowed to do so or not.
The US military la
On 04/11/2019 10:23, Chris Knipe wrote:
> I know that much - but just because it's not advertised, doesn't mean
> you're allowed to use it?
It means that you’re not supposed to advertise it to your peers, at least.
The usage of public-but-not-used space inside networks isn’t really my
problem a
101 - 200 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
