AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12

Mon Oct 7 22:01:19 UTC 2019

To close the loop here (in case if someone has this type of issue in the
future), I have spoken to AT&T instead of trying to work it out with AWS
Hosted Vendor, Reolink.

AT&T Changed my public IP, and now I am no longer in that 172.x.x.x block,
everything is working fine.

mehmet

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:54 PM Javier J <javier at advancedmachines.us> wrote:

> Auto generated VPC in AWS use RFC1819 addresses. This should not interfere
> with pub up space.
>
> What is the exact issue? If you can't ping something in AWS chances are
> it's a security group blocking you.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019, 7:00 PM Jim Popovitch via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On October 1, 2019 9:39:03 PM UTC, Matt Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org>
>> wrote:
>> >On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:50:33AM -0400, Jim Popovitch via NANOG
>> >wrote:
>> >> On 10/1/2019 4:09 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> >> > possible that this is various AWS customers making
>> >iptables/firewall mistakes?
>> >> >    "block that pesky rfc1918 172/12 space!!"
>> >>
>> >> AWS also uses some 172/12 space on their internal network (e.g. the
>> >network
>> >> that sits between EC2 instances and the AWS external firewalls)
>> >
>> >Does AWS use 172.0.0.0/12 internally, or 172.16.0.0/12?  They're
>> >different
>> >things, after all.
>> >
>>
>> I don't know their entire operations, but they do use some 172.16.0.0/12
>> addresses internally. And yes, that is very different than 172/12, sorry
>> for the confusion.
>>
>> -Jim P.
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20191007/392d6546/attachment.html>