5 ms·

Given the number of people that still can't route to 1.1.1.1, this is an interesting backup!

by neilalexander 9y ago

microcolonel 9y ago
Interested to see who that might be, it seems a bit nuts that that wouldn't work.
- neilalexander 9y ago
  People who are sat behind devices configured by lazy sysadmins who copied configuration examples out of a textbook. Also people on some public Wi-Fi networks - I have noticed 1.1.1.1 being used for HTTP landing pages more than once.
- arghwhat 9y ago
  Many. There's a lot of network configurations that accidentally use 1.1.1.1, for example for VPN endpoints. Some AT&T users are having issues because of such fuckery.
- jedberg 9y ago
  I mentioned this in the other thread yesterday, but my AT&T gigapower router is hard coded with 1.1.1.1 on an internal interface, so I can't use it. I can still use 1.0.0.1 though.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > I mentioned this in the other thread yesterday, but my AT&T gigapower router is hard coded with 1.1.1.1 on an internal interface Wow, AT&T of all people should know better. I mean, I understand the attraction to that address for customer setup reasons, and bypassing different configured NAT address ranges (i.e. 10/8, 172.16/12, and 192.168/16 networks), but surely a customer who configures a custom address range would be capable of finding the new address. Here's hoping that as IPv6 becomes ubiquitous, this is replaced broadly with something standard, possibly based on ND.
    - dingaling 9y ago
      And to help march towards ubiquity shouldn't we be encouraging IPv6-connected users to point to 2606:4700:4700::1111 Less junk traffic, less latency for folk behind CGNAT on IPv6-only mobile networks, no chance of collision with poorly a configured network equipment.
      - jedberg 9y ago
        I switched to IPv6, and then back to v4. IPv6 just isn't ready for prime time yet. The random timeouts waiting for it to fall back to v4 when the v6 endpoint was down was annoying enough to get me to switch back. I'll try it again in another year.
    - xellisx 9y ago
      The last place I worked at, we 7.x.x.x network for MPLS stuff.

Given the number of people that still can't route to 1.1.1.1, this is an interesting backup!

microcolonel 9y ago

Interested to see who that might be, it seems a bit nuts that that wouldn't work.

neilalexander 9y ago
People who are sat behind devices configured by lazy sysadmins who copied configuration examples out of a textbook. Also people on some public Wi-Fi networks - I have noticed 1.1.1.1 being used for HTTP landing pages more than once.
arghwhat 9y ago
Many. There's a lot of network configurations that accidentally use 1.1.1.1, for example for VPN endpoints. Some AT&T users are having issues because of such fuckery.
jedberg 9y ago
I mentioned this in the other thread yesterday, but my AT&T gigapower router is hard coded with 1.1.1.1 on an internal interface, so I can't use it. I can still use 1.0.0.1 though.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > I mentioned this in the other thread yesterday, but my AT&T gigapower router is hard coded with 1.1.1.1 on an internal interface Wow, AT&T of all people should know better. I mean, I understand the attraction to that address for customer setup reasons, and bypassing different configured NAT address ranges (i.e. 10/8, 172.16/12, and 192.168/16 networks), but surely a customer who configures a custom address range would be capable of finding the new address. Here's hoping that as IPv6 becomes ubiquitous, this is replaced broadly with something standard, possibly based on ND.
  - dingaling 9y ago
    And to help march towards ubiquity shouldn't we be encouraging IPv6-connected users to point to 2606:4700:4700::1111 Less junk traffic, less latency for folk behind CGNAT on IPv6-only mobile networks, no chance of collision with poorly a configured network equipment.
    - jedberg 9y ago
      I switched to IPv6, and then back to v4. IPv6 just isn't ready for prime time yet. The random timeouts waiting for it to fall back to v4 when the v6 endpoint was down was annoying enough to get me to switch back. I'll try it again in another year.
  - xellisx 9y ago
    The last place I worked at, we 7.x.x.x network for MPLS stuff.