Doug Barton dougb at dougbarton.us
Fri Apr 17 23:52:28 UTC 2015

Harley is correct that 192.0.1/24 is mentioned in 1166, but AFAICS after 
cursory examination it has fallen through the cracks since then. (Note, 
this is not the same as 192.0.2/24, which has been updated in several 
RFCs recently, including 6303 by Mark Andrews (cc'ed for his information).

I've also cc'ed Leo and Michelle from ICANN so that hopefully they can 
see about getting some whois info set up for that network. Michelle, let 
me know if it would be easier for you if I opened a ticket for this 


On 4/17/15 1:26 PM, Harley H 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 4:14 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
>>> appear
>>> to be routable. Yet, it is not mentioned in RFC 5735 nor does it have any
>>> whois information.
>>> Thanks,
>>>    Harley

I am conducting an experiment in the efficacy of PGP/MIME signatures. 
This message should be signed. If it is not, or the signature does not 
validate, please let me know how you received this message (direct, or 
to a list) and the mail software you use. Thanks!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20150417/9ac0fd9b/attachment.sig>

More information about the NANOG mailing list