Using private APNIC range in US

Jared Mauch jared at puck.nether.net
Thu Mar 18 13:35:29 CDT 2010


On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> 
> On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
>> Are they using them only within their domain(s), and ARIN addresses outside, or are they advertising them to their upstream(s) to be readvertised into the backbone?
>> 
>> If they are using them internally and NAT'ing to the outside, they're not hurting themselves or anyone else. I would personally let them alone.
>> 
> Except you're missing a keyword on the "not hurting themselves" part of that... It's "YET".
> 
> Once 1.0.0.0/8 starts getting used in the wild for legitimate sites, it means that this
> customer won't be able to reach the legitimate 1.0.0.0/8 sites from within their
> environment and it won't be immediately intuitive to debug the failures.
> 
>> If they are advertising them outside, it adds a small prefix in the ARIN domain that doesn't get aggregated by the upstream. Among 300K such prefixes it is probably noise, but gently suggesting that they use something aggregatable into their upstream's allocation would help a little bit in that regard. What they are most likely hurting is themselves, really; a datagram sent to the address from an ISP outside themselves probably travels via Australia or an Australian ISP.
>> 
> The route announcement notwithstanding, they're using space that does not
> belong to them and will belong to someone else in the near future. If you
> think that is OK, please let me know what your addresses are so that I can
> start re-using them.

Does anyone know if the University of Michigan or Cisco are going be updating their systems and documentation to no longer use 1.2.3.4 ?

http://www.google.com/search?q=1.2.3.4+site%3Acisco.com

I know that the University of Michigan utilize 1.2.3.4 for their captive portal login/logout pages as recently as monday when I was on the medical campus.

- Jared



More information about the NANOG mailing list