Re: Using private APNIC range in US

[Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net>]

On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> > Are they using them only within their domain(s), and ARIN addresses outside, or are they advertising them to their 
> > upstream(s) to be readvertised into the backbone?
> >
> > If they are using them internally and NAT'ing to the outside, they're not hurting themselves or anyone else. I would 
> > personally let them alone.
> Except you're missing a keyword on the "not hurting themselves" part of that... It's "YET".
>
> Once 1.0.0.0/8 starts getting used in the wild for legitimate sites, it means that this
> customer won't be able to reach the legitimate 1.0.0.0/8 sites from within their
> environment and it won't be immediately intuitive to debug the failures.
>
> > If they are advertising them outside, it adds a small prefix in the ARIN domain that doesn't get aggregated by the 
> > upstream. Among 300K such prefixes it is probably noise, but gently suggesting that they use something aggregatable 
> > into their upstream's allocation would help a little bit in that regard. What they are most likely hurting is 
> > themselves, really; a datagram sent to the address from an ISP outside themselves probably travels via Australia or 
> > an Australian ISP.
> The route announcement notwithstanding, they're using space that does not
> belong to them and will belong to someone else in the near future. If you
> think that is OK, please let me know what your addresses are so that I can
> start re-using them.

Does anyone know if the University of Michigan or Cisco are going be updating their systems and documentation to no 
longer use 1.2.3.4 ?

http://www.google.com/search?q=1.2.3.4+site%3Acisco.com

I know that the University of Michigan utilize 1.2.3.4 for their captive portal login/logout pages as recently as 
monday when I was on the medical campus.

- Jared