nanog mailing list archives
Re: 192.0.1.0/24?
From: Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 16:52:28 -0700
Harley is correct that 192.0.1/24 is mentioned in 1166, but AFAICS after cursory examination it has fallen through the cracks since then. (Note, this is not the same as 192.0.2/24, which has been updated in several RFCs recently, including 6303 by Mark Andrews (cc'ed for his information).
I've also cc'ed Leo and Michelle from ICANN so that hopefully they can see about getting some whois info set up for that network. Michelle, let me know if it would be easier for you if I opened a ticket for this request.
Doug On 4/17/15 1:26 PM, Harley H wrote:
It is mentioned in RFC 1166 as "BBN-TEST-C". I suppose it's still not publicly allocated.
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Harley H <bobb.harley () gmail com> wrote:Does anyone know the status of this netblock? I've come across a malware sample configured to callback to an IP in that range but it does not appear to be routable. Yet, it is not mentioned in RFC 5735 nor does it have any whois information. Thanks, Harley
--I am conducting an experiment in the efficacy of PGP/MIME signatures. This message should be signed. If it is not, or the signature does not validate, please let me know how you received this message (direct, or to a list) and the mail software you use. Thanks!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Current thread:
- 192.0.1.0/24? Harley H (Apr 17)
- Re: 192.0.1.0/24? Trent Farrell (Apr 17)
- Re: 192.0.1.0/24? Josh Luthman (Apr 17)
- Re: 192.0.1.0/24? Harley H (Apr 17)
- Re: 192.0.1.0/24? manning (Apr 17)
- Re: 192.0.1.0/24? Marco Davids (Apr 17)
- Re: 192.0.1.0/24? Marco Davids (Apr 17)
- Re: 192.0.1.0/24? Chuck Anderson (Apr 17)
- Re: 192.0.1.0/24? Harley H (Apr 17)
- Re: 192.0.1.0/24? Doug Barton (Apr 17)
- Re: 192.0.1.0/24? Marco Davids (Apr 17)
- Re: 192.0.1.0/24? Leo Vegoda (Apr 27)