nanog mailing list archives
Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12
From: Neil Hanlon <neil () shrug pw>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 12:11:36 -0400
RCN here in the greater Boston area does CGNAT inside 10.0.0.0/8. This doesn't surprise me. On Oct 10, 2019, 11:27, at 11:27, Javier J <javier () advancedmachines us> wrote:
Very strange ATT would put end users on an RFC 1918 block unless they were doing NAT to the end user. If they were doing NAT, I would expect CGNAT in the 100.something or other range. On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 11:07 AM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet () akcin net> wrote:Yes On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 20:46 Javier J <javier () advancedmachines us>wrote:I'm just curious, was the ip in the RFC 1918 172.16.0.0/16 range? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918 On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Mehmet Akcin <mehmet () akcin net>wrote:To close the loop here (in case if someone has this type of issuein thefuture), I have spoken to AT&T instead of trying to work it outwith AWSHosted Vendor, Reolink. AT&T Changed my public IP, and now I am no longer in that 172.x.x.x block, everything is working fine. mehmet On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 2:54 PM Javier J<javier () advancedmachines us>wrote:Auto generated VPC in AWS use RFC1819 addresses. This should not interfere with pub up space. What is the exact issue? If you can't ping something in AWSchances areit's a security group blocking you. On Tue, Oct 1, 2019, 7:00 PM Jim Popovitch via NANOG<nanog () nanog org>wrote:On October 1, 2019 9:39:03 PM UTC, Matt Palmer<mpalmer () hezmatt org>wrote:On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 04:50:33AM -0400, Jim Popovitch viaNANOGwrote:On 10/1/2019 4:09 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:possible that this is various AWS customers makingiptables/firewall mistakes?"block that pesky rfc1918 172/12 space!!"AWS also uses some 172/12 space on their internal network(e.g. thenetworkthat sits between EC2 instances and the AWS externalfirewalls)Does AWS use 172.0.0.0/12 internally, or 172.16.0.0/12? They're different things, after all.I don't know their entire operations, but they do use some 172.16.0.0/12 addresses internally. And yes, that is very different than172/12,sorry for the confusion. -Jim P. --Mehmet +1-424-298-1903
Current thread:
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12, (continued)
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12 Christopher Morrow (Oct 01)
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12 Stephane Bortzmeyer (Oct 01)
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12 Jim Popovitch via NANOG (Oct 01)
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12 Matt Palmer (Oct 01)
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12 Jim Popovitch via NANOG (Oct 01)
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12 Javier J (Oct 03)
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12 Mehmet Akcin (Oct 07)
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12 Javier J (Oct 09)
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12 Mehmet Akcin (Oct 10)
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12 Javier J (Oct 10)
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12 Neil Hanlon (Oct 10)
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12 Javier J (Oct 10)
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12 Jay Borkenhagen (Oct 11)
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12 Javier J (Oct 21)
- Re: AWS issues with 172.0.0.0/12 Christopher Morrow (Oct 01)