IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A Splendid Example Of A Renumbering Disaster

Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Mon, 26 November 2012 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C501121F8527 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:41:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9yPYyq2+WBCc for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:41:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634B321F851C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:41:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1353961557; x=1385497557; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=q5hRA2QlKLYstwmBOvxhXiJqQYdlnmC3Mqk57sXsEio=; b=gtdkoTrYjX2kGbsxDc1pPGa91sJvbVadjRAR03fDRqVlVdQyryT7NQSb AGAZVxtk18yag/ZqTbJtPWkViLaaCjY1y8FOnbPPK1xnPiv5wX9K0Ji/X 7+Cc5t+W1O5saqdiEPewvq9REpfDmBeGNk0TuNOozXAa5zNmED+jbMWWp E=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6908"; a="9101172"
Received: from ironmsg02-lv.qualcomm.com ([10.47.202.183]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 26 Nov 2012 12:25:57 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6908"; a="2472926"
Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by ironmsg02-lv.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 26 Nov 2012 12:41:39 -0800
Received: from presnick-mac.local (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.4; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:41:40 -0800
Message-ID: <50B3D402.7070502@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:41:38 -0600
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sabahattin Gucukoglu <listsebby@me.com>
Subject: Re: A Splendid Example Of A Renumbering Disaster
References: <54E43A43-A9F3-4803-BAB9-B06F4EB0CB19@me.com>
In-Reply-To: <54E43A43-A9F3-4803-BAB9-B06F4EB0CB19@me.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:41:50 -0000

On 11/23/12 7:46 PM, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
> It's Friday.  Time to plug IPv6 some more. :-)
>
> http://b.logme.in/2012/11/07/changes-to-hamachi-on-november-19th/
>
> LogMeIn Hamachi is basically a NAT-traversing layer 2 VPN solution.  They avoided conflicts with RFC 1918 space by hijacking IPv4 space in 5/8, now actively being allocated by LIRs in Europe.  When that didn't work (see link above), they moved to 25/8, allocated to the UK MoD.  While I'm almost sure that they haven't got it quite so wrong this time, following the comments says that the idea was not only a very bad one to start with, it's cost a lot of people a lot of grief that IPv6 was clearly going to mitigate in renumbering.  Perhaps it is why they recommend it per default, if not for the number of applications that would be broken by it.
>
> By the way, is this an application that the new shared transition space might benefit?
>    

Yes, like Benson, I am at a loss for why they do not use RFC 6598 
addresses. That's what someone should tell these goofballs to do.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email