nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC1918 conformance
From: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex () Relcom EU net>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:04:19 +0300 (MSK)
Sorry, but while I was looking to this list, I just reminded interesting issue. Why IANA did not reserved 223.255.0.0/16 or something simular; by other words, I'd like to have short (256, 512, 1024) private address space in the END of total address space for the normal IP (excluding D class etc). For example. I have a lot of CISCO routers with OSPF protocol. Thnis crazy IOS use highest loopback interface address as router-ID address; I use loopbacks to install load balancing etc. and I can't prevent loopbacks from being equal on the different routers. That's why I hardly need some IP addresses for 'Loopback 98' interface to use it as router-ID; and this have to be higher than any user's addresses. I use 233.255.254.0/24 for this purposes, but it's not reserved address. This is one, simple, example why it's nessesary to reserve some short address space in the begin and in the end of total addresses. On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Tony Bates wrote:
Andrew Partan <asp () partan com> writes: * They sure look reserved to me: * note% whois RESERVED * IANA (RESERVED-1) RESERVED 0.0. * 0.0 * IANA (RESERVED-3) RESERVED 128.0. * 0.0 * IANA (RESERVED-4) RESERVED 191.255. * 0.0 * IANA (RESERVED-5) RESERVED 223.255.25 * 5.0 * IANA (RESERVED-7) Reserved 64.0.0.0 - 95.0. * 0.0 * IANA (RESERVED-8) Reserved 96.0.0.0 - 126.0. * 0.0 * * Actually it looks like I should add the top 1/2 of the old A space as well. * This would be good as I report each week in my report possible bogus routes but no one seems to care to filter (or fix this). Today it says: *** Bogus 69.1.0.0/16 from AS1849 *** Bogus 69.2.0.0/16 from AS1849 *** Bogus 90.0.0.0 from AS4747 *** Bogus 103.40.99.0/24 from AS3249 --Tony
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- RFC1918 conformance Pierre Thibaudeau (Feb 10)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 10)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Bill Manning (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Tony Bates (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Alex P. Rudnev (Feb 11)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Jeffrey C. Ollie (Feb 11)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Alex P. Rudnev (Feb 12)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Dana Hudes (Feb 12)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Alex P. Rudnev (Feb 13)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Jeffrey C. Ollie (Feb 13)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Bill Manning (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 10)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Tony Bates (Feb 17)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance bgp4-adm (Feb 10)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Brett D. Watson (Feb 10)