4 ms·

I'm using AnchNet's services. And We've asked AnchNet when I recieved a e-mail from our BGPMon. They said their staff was configured a wrong config on router. A

I'm using AnchNet's services. And We've asked AnchNet when I recieved a e-mail from our BGPMon. They said their staff was configured a wrong config on router. Also they don't know 1.1.1.0/24 is used by CloudFlare&APNIC. So they used this prefix to test.

tazjin 8y ago
It shouldn't really matter who is currently using that net, it's not a private range :/
- jedisct1 8y ago
  Tell Cisco.
  - walrus01 8y ago
    Both Cisco and Juniper use the standardized documentation IP ranges in their example/lab configurations and training materials. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5735 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5735 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5737 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5737
    - detaro 8y ago
      Cisco did recommend to use 1.1.1.1 (or did default to? commentary online is unclear), but in a different space: for the DHCP server with DHCP proxying in their WLAN products. They might be referring to that.
    - alberts00 8y ago
      I have been going through Cisco Netacad materials for last 2 years and I've seen 1.1.1.1 in examples. Though I just did a search and did not see 1.1.1.1 mentioned anymore.
sdfgdfhjdgj 8y ago
Why let people access BGP that don't even know that 1.0.0.0/8 or 1.1.1.0/24 are part of the public internet or that decide they can use random prefixes to "test" things? :-/
- akw28888 8y ago
  In fact, they usually use 172.10.x.x on their PtP address...
  - jlgaddis 8y ago
    That isn't a reserved/private network either.
    - walrus01 8y ago
      I shake my head in bewilderment when I see stuff like this - just why would people make things harder for themselves. I very highly doubt that they are so large that they ran out of IP space in the enormity of 172.16/12 to encompass all of their OSPF/BGP router-id /32s and individual /30 OSPF router-to-router links.
      - majewsky 8y ago
        > enormity What's enormous about an IPv4 /12? :) When the German army requested an allocation of IPv6 address space, they were given a /28, but complained that 2^100 IPs is not enough for them and they actually need a /22.
        walrus01 8y ago
        Well it's not so enormous, but it's also accompanied by 10/8 and 192.168/16. Many networks use some combination of all three internally for different purposes.
        mastax 8y ago
        Thats mind boggling... I'd like to read that reasoning about that! (I'm sure there's some German-language publication somewhere...) Did they want each bullet to have a /64?

tazjin 8y ago

It shouldn't really matter who is currently using that net, it's not a private range :/

jedisct1 8y ago
Tell Cisco.
- walrus01 8y ago
  Both Cisco and Juniper use the standardized documentation IP ranges in their example/lab configurations and training materials. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5735 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5735 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5737 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5737
  - detaro 8y ago
    Cisco did recommend to use 1.1.1.1 (or did default to? commentary online is unclear), but in a different space: for the DHCP server with DHCP proxying in their WLAN products. They might be referring to that.
  - alberts00 8y ago
    I have been going through Cisco Netacad materials for last 2 years and I've seen 1.1.1.1 in examples. Though I just did a search and did not see 1.1.1.1 mentioned anymore.

sdfgdfhjdgj 8y ago

Why let people access BGP that don't even know that 1.0.0.0/8 or 1.1.1.0/24 are part of the public internet or that decide they can use random prefixes to "test" things? :-/

akw28888 8y ago
In fact, they usually use 172.10.x.x on their PtP address...
- jlgaddis 8y ago
  That isn't a reserved/private network either.
  - walrus01 8y ago
    I shake my head in bewilderment when I see stuff like this - just why would people make things harder for themselves. I very highly doubt that they are so large that they ran out of IP space in the enormity of 172.16/12 to encompass all of their OSPF/BGP router-id /32s and individual /30 OSPF router-to-router links.
    - majewsky 8y ago
      > enormity What's enormous about an IPv4 /12? :) When the German army requested an allocation of IPv6 address space, they were given a /28, but complained that 2^100 IPs is not enough for them and they actually need a /22.
      - walrus01 8y ago
        Well it's not so enormous, but it's also accompanied by 10/8 and 192.168/16. Many networks use some combination of all three internally for different purposes.
      - mastax 8y ago
        Thats mind boggling... I'd like to read that reasoning about that! (I'm sure there's some German-language publication somewhere...) Did they want each bullet to have a /64?