nanog mailing list archives
Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
From: Dorn Hetzel <dhetzel () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 13:45:28 -0500
On a related note, do you think that 0.0.0.0/8 (excluding 0.0.0.0/32, of course :) ) will be feasible for allocation and use ? On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda () icann org> wrote:
On 02/02/2009 8:10, "Bruce Grobler" <bruce () yoafrica com> wrote:Most ISP's, if not all, null route 1.0.0.0/8 therefore you shouldn't encounter any problems using it in a private network.1.0.0.0/8 will be allocated in the not too distant future. All currently unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s will be allocated in the not too distant future. Regards, Leo Vegoda
Current thread:
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space, (continued)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Joe Maimon (Feb 05)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Jeffrey Ollie (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Joe Greco (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TSG (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 02)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Bruce Grobler (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Patrick W. Gilmore (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Leo Vegoda (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Dorn Hetzel (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Leo Vegoda (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Dorn Hetzel (Feb 02)