mdavids at forfun.net
Fri Apr 17 21:08:24 UTC 2015
Wasn't (part) of this space assigned to RFC6333? Carrier Grade NAT and
manning schreef op 17-04-15 om 22:45:
> nothing that is authoritative (anymore)… 1996-2000
> last century, 192.0.0.0/24 and 220.127.116.11/24 were identified as usable address blocks, post-CIDR testing/evaluation.
> they were both earmarked for use in the (then) four new root servers (which became J, K, L, and M)… they were
> then supposed to be used as the blocks for the root zone distribution masters.
> ICANN emerged and claimed them for itself, at one point using them for internal ICANN networking.
> I lost interest/control at that point and don;t know what happened after that.
> bmanning at karoshi.com
> PO Box 12317
> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
> On 17April2015Friday, at 13:26, Harley H <bobb.harley at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It is mentioned in RFC 1166 as "BBN-TEST-C". I suppose it's still not
>> publicly allocated.
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Josh Luthman <josh at imaginenetworksllc.com>
>>> No one?
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Harley H <bobb.harley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Does anyone know the status of this netblock? I've come across a malware
>>>> sample configured to callback to an IP in that range but it does not
>>>> to be routable. Yet, it is not mentioned in RFC 5735 nor does it have any
>>>> whois information.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4219 bytes
Desc: S/MIME-cryptografische ondertekening
More information about the NANOG