nanog mailing list archives

Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT

From: joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:51:09 -0700

On 7/18/12 6:24 PM, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:

So some "comments" on the intertubes claim that DoD ok'd use of it's
unadvertized space on private networks. Is there any official reference
that may support this statement that anyone of you have seen out there?

The arpanet prefix(10/8) was returned to IANA circa 1990 it's now RFC1918. everything else is urban myth.

--Andrey

Current thread:

Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Cameron Byrne (Jul 17)
- Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT TJ (Jul 17)
- Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Justin M. Streiner (Jul 17)
  - Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Andrey Khomyakov (Jul 18)
    - Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT TJ (Jul 18)
    - Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Grant Ridder (Jul 18)
    - RE: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Chuck Church (Jul 18)
    - Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Måns Nilsson (Jul 19)
    - Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT Dobbins, Roland (Jul 25)
    - Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT bmanning (Jul 19)
    - Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT joel jaeggli (Jul 25)