Using private APNIC range in US

Mark Smith nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Sun Mar 21 03:12:31 CDT 2010


On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:48:52 -0600
Tom Ammon <tom.ammon at utah.edu> wrote:

> RFC1918 is a good place to start ;)
> 

Most of the issues in 

"Deprecating Site Local Addresses"
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3879.txt

identified in IPv6 Site-Local addressing also apply to
duplicated/overlapping IPv4 addressing.

> On 3/18/2010 10:22 AM, Jaren Angerbauer wrote:
> > Thanks all for the on / off list responses on this.  I acknowledge I'm
> > playing in territory I'm not familiar with, and was a bad idea to jump
> > to the conclusion that this range was private.  I made that assumption
> > originally because the entire /8 was owned by APNIC, and just figured
> > since the registrar owned them, it must have been a private range. :S
> >
> > It sounds like this range was just recently assigned -- is there any
> > document (RFC?) or source I could look through to learn more about
> > this, and/or provide evidence to my client?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jaren
> >
> >    
> 
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tom Ammon
> Network Engineer
> Office: 801.587.0976
> Mobile: 801.674.9273
> 
> Center for High Performance Computing
> University of Utah
> http://www.chpc.utah.edu
> 
> 




More information about the NANOG mailing list