AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12

Thu Oct 10 01:46:40 UTC 2019

I'm just curious, was the ip in the RFC 1918 172.16.0.0/16 range?

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet at akcin.net> wrote:

> 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/20191009/d1ec1382/attachment.html>