nanog mailing list archives
Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon () jmaimon com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:05:16 -0500
Nick Hilliard wrote:
Starting to get annoyed with ageism from tech nerds. Lots of grandma and grandpa computer geeks in existence these days. I think its time we start using great-grammy instead.Joe Maimon wrote on 19/11/2021 14:30:Its very viable, since its a local support issue only. Your ISP can advise you that they will support you using the lowest number and you may then use it if you can....all you may need is a single patched/upgraded router or firewall to get your additional static IP online.That would be an entertaining support phone call with grandma.
So, she gets a new CPE which issues 192.168.1.0 to her laptop and .1 to her printer, and then her printer can no longer talk to her laptop.
So she has a datacenter cab with a cat6a multi-gig drop and the ISP included in the price an on-link public /30, but more is gonna cost her, and this is for the non-profit she is running out of her SSI.
Now she gets to use her link with two IP addresses instead of one, although she may have to click update firmware from the device's web interface, which might be harder than you think since she grew up using punch cards and these new fangled mouse thingies are a pain in her arthritic fingers, she'll take a CLI any day.
She might use that for a redundant router, or for the second 443 port mapping inevitably required.
Two can play the fake anecdote game.
ISP's may very well be inclined to advise customers that a free extra IP is theirs for the taking should their equipment support it.I'm sure that the ISP would be happy to walk her through doing a firmware upgrade on her printer or that her day would end up better for having learned about DHCP assignment policies on her CPE.They could even email her a copy of the RFC and a link to the IETF working group if she felt there was a problem.Nick
Best, Joe
Current thread:
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public, (continued)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Nick Hilliard (Nov 18)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Steven Bakker (Nov 18)
- Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Nick Hilliard (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Randy Bush (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast David Conrad (Nov 18)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Nick Hilliard (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Maimon (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Nick Hilliard (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Maimon (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Zu (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast William Herrin (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast ML (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Mark Andrews (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Jay Hennigan (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Joe Maimon (Nov 20)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast J. Hellenthal via NANOG (Nov 21)
- FreeBSD users of 127/8 John Gilmore (Nov 22)
- Re: FreeBSD users of 127/8 Måns Nilsson (Nov 22)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Michael Thomas (Nov 21)