Re:Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8
by schoen on Tuesday November 16, 2021 @06:21PM
(#29247519)
It's also possible that DoD is using its ranges but not publicly announcing routes to them.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8
by slownews45 on Tuesday November 16, 2021 @06:25PM
(#29247554)
Which would be a good situation for private address ranges.
They have 14 /8 blocks though - wow.
Re:Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8
by ArchOversight on Wednesday November 17, 2021 @01:12AM
(#29249734)
It's much easier and nicer to use globally unique addressing if you've got it than to set up multiple NAT's just to allow different sites to re-use the same private IP space.
I worked at an ISP in a previous job where we ran out of RFC1918 space, and were squatting on UK MoD/DoD/other IP space for internal traffic because we simply had no more IP's to assign within RFC1918.
It was a bad situation when one of those ranges we were squatting on suddenly became used and customers were unable to reach certain services...
Re:Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8
by schoen on Tuesday November 16, 2021 @06:33PM
(#29247617)
Let's see, according to
https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-add...
it looks like 6/8, 11/8, 21/8, 22/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 33/8, and 55/8 are allocated to organizations that are part of DoD. That comes to ten /8 allocations. Am I missing some?
Re:Unicast Use of the Formerly Reserved 127/8
by bradknowles on Tuesday November 16, 2021 @07:21PM
(#29248007)
Dang. I thought as one of my last actions as the DISA.MIL Technical POC in 1995, I had successfully turned 22/ back into the NIC, so that it could be re-assigned to someone else who needed it. When we swept that address space repeatedly, we sure didn’t see anyone actually using it.
Dang.