nanog at jima.tk
Sat Apr 16 20:18:50 CDT 2011
On 2011-04-16 20:06, Michael Painter wrote:
> Brielle Bruns wrote:
>> I'm assuming your provider's network engineers (stupidly) assumed
>> 123.x.x.x was a good idea for use in a private setup because it hadn't
>> been assigned from the global pool (yet).
>> Wouldn't be the first provider or service to not use proper RFC assigned
>> private IP space for their internal networking setup.
> Apologies...missed operative word 'internal'.<s>
I was about to reply pointing that out. FWIW, they're not announcing
that space, so I definitely agree with the poorly-thought-out private
infrastructure theory. http://bgp.he.net/AS36149#_prefixes FWIW.
> They are testing IPTV on Oahu in preperation for roll-out, so maybe they
> renumbered in order to more easily identify the segments.(?)
Really, I'd have hoped they'd use their two-year-old 2607:f9a0::/32
for anything that ambitious...but I might be wishing for too much.
(Also, that 123 block seems to have been allocated in 2006, so it'd be
even more unprofessional to start projects with that space since then.)
More information about the NANOG