nanog mailing list archives
Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
From: Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:19:18 +1300
On 3/02/2009, at 5:10 AM, Bruce Grobler 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.
route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bgp 1.0.0.0 BGP routing table entry for 0.0.0.0/0, version 3321685 ...I think you will find that "most ISPs, if not all" in the DFZ "null route" 0.0.0.0/0.
If they don't have a route covering 1.0.0.0/8, of course packets destined to that prefix will be dropped.
-- Nathan Ward
Current thread:
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space, (continued)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Skeeve Stevens (Feb 03)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Skeeve Stevens (Feb 03)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Palmer (Feb 03)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Skeeve Stevens (Feb 03)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Ricky Beam (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Måns Nilsson (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Randy Bush (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space James R. Cutler (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Ricky Beam (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong (Feb 03)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Nathan Ward (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Adrian Chadd (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Seth Mattinen (Feb 02)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Michael Hallgren (Feb 02)