IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homenet] Which IP addresses must be avoided?

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Wed, 18 May 2016 07:02 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5205D12B02B for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 May 2016 00:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.727
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.727 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=swm.pp.se
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2OcMHUYCP17C for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 May 2016 00:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58AFE12D0D3 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 May 2016 00:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9CFCDA2; Wed, 18 May 2016 09:02:33 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1463554953; bh=igCdv84p5VOA24rsdDg65QxFN9gDSqnjYS73Br5PgVE=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=UNJytJi5jZARsc9LZlxxdr4EtqGhJEbxBU/RkuldtYJsxwgsKQsdEewypAJpVpGDk eB1HXVeyH6TUJaSgwqutTXzlAW2gI4CM2/HL//cLsb13ZAqu56qG0UnL2MiveQcb+P r1Y4EHyAdJsQqS1HZsyktxQ4gbT0aeP9NuNEg/EA=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9126FA1; Wed, 18 May 2016 09:02:33 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 09:02:33 +0200
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <0714bb3f-3450-2cb2-d685-b3142faf3018@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1605180900490.28372@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <87wpms8zvo.wl-jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> <5ae48799-cb13-2b68-a4cc-a56b6174ae4f@bellis.me.uk> <573B4BA3.9020709@isi.edu> <0714bb3f-3450-2cb2-d685-b3142faf3018@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/lYvjOyhx1vD6PjhhIfa7awHwrzY>
Cc: homenet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homenet] Which IP addresses must be avoided?
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 07:02:41 -0000

On Tue, 17 May 2016, joel jaeggli wrote:

> We use these IPs for production VIPs and testing in a CDN (as /32s) and 
> they are fine.

I have talked to operator colleagues and found several who use .0 and .255 
IPv4 adresses handed out to customers for Internet communication without 
ill effects.

So while this was a problem 10-20 years ago, I'd say it isn't now.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email