4 ms·

They used an IP that was originally reserved for what reserved IP's are used for. Now that Cloudflare convinced 1.1.1.1 to be released, I'm sure AT&T wants serv

They used an IP that was originally reserved for what reserved IP's are used for. Now that Cloudflare convinced 1.1.1.1 to be released, I'm sure AT&T wants service continuity and had to make this decision, which is well within their rights as an ISP. I dislike AT&T so if this was entirely opinion-based, I would be against them here. But this is a knee-jerk reaction to a well justified decision.

unethical_ban 8y ago
It was not ever a reserved IP address in the proper sense. They should have used something from RFC1918.
- juliangoldsmith 8y ago
  Any sane gateway would block any access to anything from RFC1918, and using a private IP address for a public service is a bad idea in general.
  - unethical_ban 8y ago
    Fair enough, if it was traversing public (non-ATT) networks without a tunnel.
    - juliangoldsmith 8y ago
      It would be reasonable for AT&T equipment to block any private IP traffic outside a customer's private network by default. That's ignoring that AT&T's network is public, and it wouldn't make sense to use a private IP for a service they provide. Reversing that would likely require AT&T to make a firewall change to literally every piece of equipment they operate, and that's assuming that they don't use the blocks internally. That, and I can guarantee that some customer, somewhere, would be using whatever IP they chose.
qmarchi 8y ago
Except that it wasn't classified as a private IP address. They should've use something like 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, or 192.168.0.0/16. The 1.0.0.0/8 range was owned by IANA from _1981_ up until 2010, when it was transfered to APNIC. (The 2.0.0.0/8 range was also owned by IANA until 2010, thentransfered to RIPE NCC). If you want to get technical, use of the space could be construed as theft. As for the continuity issue, it was stated that it was an old device, so they have no responsibility to continue supporting it, and considering the age of the device in question, it may not be able to connect to the existing network.
- nickysielicki 8y ago
  They should be using 100.64/10 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
masklinn 8y ago
> They used an IP that was originally reserved for what reserved IP's are used for. I'm eagerly awaiting your evidence for this statement, which to my knowledge is entirely incorrect. So far's I know, existing uses of 1.1.1.1 have almost universally been illegitimate (e.g. captive portals, internal-ish services, …)
criddell 8y ago
I'd be more inclined to agree with you if AT&T were to come out and say what the problem is along with assurances that they are working on rectifying the situation and expect to have 1.1.1.1 available in X days.

unethical_ban 8y ago

It was not ever a reserved IP address in the proper sense. They should have used something from RFC1918.

juliangoldsmith 8y ago
Any sane gateway would block any access to anything from RFC1918, and using a private IP address for a public service is a bad idea in general.
- unethical_ban 8y ago
  Fair enough, if it was traversing public (non-ATT) networks without a tunnel.
  - juliangoldsmith 8y ago
    It would be reasonable for AT&T equipment to block any private IP traffic outside a customer's private network by default. That's ignoring that AT&T's network is public, and it wouldn't make sense to use a private IP for a service they provide. Reversing that would likely require AT&T to make a firewall change to literally every piece of equipment they operate, and that's assuming that they don't use the blocks internally. That, and I can guarantee that some customer, somewhere, would be using whatever IP they chose.

qmarchi 8y ago

Except that it wasn't classified as a private IP address. They should've use something like 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, or 192.168.0.0/16. The 1.0.0.0/8 range was owned by IANA from _1981_ up until 2010, when it was transfered to APNIC. (The 2.0.0.0/8 range was also owned by IANA until 2010, thentransfered to RIPE NCC). If you want to get technical, use of the space could be construed as theft. As for the continuity issue, it was stated that it was an old device, so they have no responsibility to continue supporting it, and considering the age of the device in question, it may not be able to connect to the existing network.

nickysielicki 8y ago
They should be using 100.64/10 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598

masklinn 8y ago

> They used an IP that was originally reserved for what reserved IP's are used for. I'm eagerly awaiting your evidence for this statement, which to my knowledge is entirely incorrect. So far's I know, existing uses of 1.1.1.1 have almost universally been illegitimate (e.g. captive portals, internal-ish services, …)

criddell 8y ago

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if AT&T were to come out and say what the problem is along with assurances that they are working on rectifying the situation and expect to have 1.1.1.1 available in X days.