9 ms·

About 10 years ago, IBM used to use the 9.0.0.0/8 space in basically exactly the same way as one would use 10.0.0.0/8, for internal-only networking. Each workst

About 10 years ago, IBM used to use the 9.0.0.0/8 space in basically exactly the same way as one would use 10.0.0.0/8, for internal-only networking. Each workstation got its own 9.x.x.x IP, but it wasn't routable from outside. I hope they stopped doing that, but I doubt it.

Milner08 5y ago
About 5 years ago that was still a thing!
jmreid 5y ago
Apple was the same when I was there for 17.0.0.0/8
- Aloha 5y ago
  I thought apple owned the 17.0.0.0/8 netblock?
  - thetinguy 5y ago
    They do.
    - Aloha 5y ago
      Then how is it squatting? Even the article defined it as IP space not owned. From the parent article "I will define IP address squatting as “using IP addresses that are not RFC1918 defined and not your unicast space issued by a RIR”." Unless this is meant to construe all legacy assignments as "squatting" which is a pants on head definition.
      - toast0 5y ago
        By analogy, domain squatting isn't using a domain that isn't yours, it's underutilizing a limited resource that's assigned to you. Using IPs for internal networking doesn't necessarily mean under utilizing though; but might not be enough to justify such an assignment today.
        Aloha 5y ago
        I dont disagree, there might-should be clawback provisions for those legacy allocations. But how do you define 'use' they could easily 'use' them by simply announcing them via BGP and null routing the traffic to the IP's they don't want exposed? The end answer is still IPv6, where everyone can have as much or as little IP space as they want.
        toast0 5y ago
        > But how do you define 'use' Can they make a plausible spreadsheet showing use. But, clawback of IP allocations is very rare, even for allocations that were made with agreements allowing it. There's some high profile cases relating to fraud, but otherwise nope. Legacy allocations would be nice to clean up, but if it's not voluntary, it's not happening. And at this point, if it happens, it's probably going to be a sale rather than a return.
        Aloha 5y ago
        Yeah, I don't really disagree - I think the realistic future is IPv6 - even though my ISP doesn't do dual stack on its business circuits.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        I feel like null routing would obviously not count as use.
cameronh90 5y ago
Was it still behind NAT?
- dijit 5y ago
  Since it can’t be routed globally the return path almost certainly has to be NATd to something globally routable.
Aloha 5y ago
Doesn't IBM own the 9.0.0.0/8 netblock?
xoa 5y ago
Why would that be relevant here (or sibling comment about Apple)? Last I checked except for 9.9.9.0/24 (to quad9) IBM is indeed the assignee for 9.0.0.0/8 from back in 1992. Apple got 17.0.0.0/8 back in 1990. Back in the day a lot of big entities got whole /8 blocks (including of course a lot of the USG but private corps as well). Many of them are still around and fully active, while others are defunct (Halliburton had a /8 and that went back to ARIN then out to registries) and/or have shifted (like IIRC Amazon now has 3.0.0.0/8 but that was General Electric originally). That's not squatting, that's just making use of what they have. >I hope they stopped doing that, but I doubt it. Why should they stop? Ideally we'd have had at least 64-bit or better 128-bit from the beginning in a nicer form then IPv6 ended up and then every single one of us could have millions of IPs if we wished. That isn't how it ended up but that doesn't mean those who got them shouldn't use them. I make use of my minuscule bit of public IPv4 for my own stuff.
- manuel_w 5y ago
  > Why would that be relevant here Because it shows how wasteful these companies operate with resources others are in need of.
  - xenadu02 5y ago
    It's irrelevant. Even if the authority existed to reclaim all the /8s handed out to private companies (it doesn't) you'd kick the can down the road a few years at best. Then we'd be right back in the same boat. There are only ~4 billion IPv4 addresses. There are more than that many humans alive, most of whom have or will have a smartphone. So we're already short on addresses without considering network equipment, servers, IoT, or anything else.
  - assttoasstmgr 5y ago
    If they own the IP space they can do with it as they please. They've had it since 1992. It reminds me of the nouveau urbanists that move into places like SF in droves then instantly start complaining that the little old lady down the street, who has lived in the same house for 50 years, is being greedy and wasteful because she doesn't sell her family home to developers who will build 50 shoebox condos in its place. I suspect most of the "10/8 ought to be enough for anyone" crowd has never worked on a complex enterprise network. Just because a netblock is in use doesn't mean it has to be routable to the Internet. The problem isn't with IBM. The problem is all the cloud BS -- the 18,000th food delivery app that no one asked for -- isn't using IPv6. And that's just pure laziness on the developers' part.
Tsiklon 5y ago
At the same time frame HP did the same with their /8 IIRC
- Aloha 5y ago
  Ford does the same.
remram 5y ago
My university (11 years ago) was the same. They had a /16, all of which was firewalled and could only access the internet through an HTTP proxy. edit: Just did a quick WHOIS. They still have the /16 even though the university doesn't exist any more (merged with another). Crazy.
onei 5y ago
HP did the same for 15.0.0.0/8 and 16.0.0.0/8 until the HP/HPE split at which point I think they couldn't figure out who should get the address space. As 2 x /8 is pretty valuable, they sold off chunks of it and are presumably still doing so. Ironically, having such addresses was sort of useful when companies got acquired and teams got shifted around. Starting to use an acquired company's network that was never designed with "what if we get acquired and have to play nice with others" in mind causes all sorts of routing pain.
dheera 5y ago
At MIT we had 18.0.0.0/8 until they sold a bunch of it to Amazon.
- DonHopkins 5y ago
  MIT also had "WTBS" until they sold it to Ted Turner in 1979! It was said to stand for "Wildly Technical Bull Shit". MIT Student Radio WTBS 1964-65. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI2Xx3XSTFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI2Xx3XSTFw WTBS "The Ghetto": Soul-Music Radio Show. Created by Black MIT students in 1970, this radio program gained popularity in the Cambridge/Boston area. https://www.blackhistory.mit.edu/story/wtbs-ghetto https://www.blackhistory.mit.edu/story/wtbs-ghetto Promo for MIT BSU's "The Ghetto" (WTBS 88.1 FM) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wUcHb6FMY8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wUcHb6FMY8
wmf 5y ago
IBM owned 9/8 so this is a legitimate use of address space. All hosts should have globally unique addresses, even if you want to use NAT to hide various things. IBM does multiple acquisitions per year. Imagine merging two corporate networks that both use 10/8; it's a nightmare.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wongarsu 5y ago
  The acquisition's IPs might not conflict with IBMs, but surely they conflict with those of the other acquisitions? Is there any benefit after the first acquisition?
  - wmf 5y ago
    My point is that if every company uses real IPs then you can merge networks with no conflicts. 10/8 is fine for home use but not for enterprise networks.
    - wongarsu 5y ago
      In a word where any medium sized company could just get a /20 network and any enterprise could get a /8 I would agree, but with IPv4 we live in a world where the vast majority of companies don't have anything but 10/8 (and a couple of IPs for public facing stuff). The only real options besides 10/8 are to have been big at the advent of the internet (like IBM or Apple) or misappropriate one of those IP blocks in the hope it never becomes publicly routable.
      - tpolzer 5y ago
        There's a real option: IPv6 and 464XLAT
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        So use no IPv4s at all? Well that still falls under "all the addresses you assign to machines are real global addresses" I'm sure it's a fine option now but that RFC is pretty new.
beckler 5y ago
GE did the same with 3.0.0.0/8 until they sold it to Amazon. When Amazon started actually using those addresses, it created a situation known internally as the “threepocalypse”.

Milner08 5y ago

About 5 years ago that was still a thing!

jmreid 5y ago

Apple was the same when I was there for 17.0.0.0/8

Aloha 5y ago
I thought apple owned the 17.0.0.0/8 netblock?
- thetinguy 5y ago
  They do.
  - Aloha 5y ago
    Then how is it squatting? Even the article defined it as IP space not owned. From the parent article "I will define IP address squatting as “using IP addresses that are not RFC1918 defined and not your unicast space issued by a RIR”." Unless this is meant to construe all legacy assignments as "squatting" which is a pants on head definition.
    - toast0 5y ago
      By analogy, domain squatting isn't using a domain that isn't yours, it's underutilizing a limited resource that's assigned to you. Using IPs for internal networking doesn't necessarily mean under utilizing though; but might not be enough to justify such an assignment today.
      - Aloha 5y ago
        I dont disagree, there might-should be clawback provisions for those legacy allocations. But how do you define 'use' they could easily 'use' them by simply announcing them via BGP and null routing the traffic to the IP's they don't want exposed? The end answer is still IPv6, where everyone can have as much or as little IP space as they want.
        toast0 5y ago
        > But how do you define 'use' Can they make a plausible spreadsheet showing use. But, clawback of IP allocations is very rare, even for allocations that were made with agreements allowing it. There's some high profile cases relating to fraud, but otherwise nope. Legacy allocations would be nice to clean up, but if it's not voluntary, it's not happening. And at this point, if it happens, it's probably going to be a sale rather than a return.
        Aloha 5y ago
        Yeah, I don't really disagree - I think the realistic future is IPv6 - even though my ISP doesn't do dual stack on its business circuits.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        I feel like null routing would obviously not count as use.

cameronh90 5y ago

Was it still behind NAT?

dijit 5y ago
Since it can’t be routed globally the return path almost certainly has to be NATd to something globally routable.

Aloha 5y ago

Doesn't IBM own the 9.0.0.0/8 netblock?

xoa 5y ago

Why would that be relevant here (or sibling comment about Apple)? Last I checked except for 9.9.9.0/24 (to quad9) IBM is indeed the assignee for 9.0.0.0/8 from back in 1992. Apple got 17.0.0.0/8 back in 1990. Back in the day a lot of big entities got whole /8 blocks (including of course a lot of the USG but private corps as well). Many of them are still around and fully active, while others are defunct (Halliburton had a /8 and that went back to ARIN then out to registries) and/or have shifted (like IIRC Amazon now has 3.0.0.0/8 but that was General Electric originally). That's not squatting, that's just making use of what they have. >I hope they stopped doing that, but I doubt it. Why should they stop? Ideally we'd have had at least 64-bit or better 128-bit from the beginning in a nicer form then IPv6 ended up and then every single one of us could have millions of IPs if we wished. That isn't how it ended up but that doesn't mean those who got them shouldn't use them. I make use of my minuscule bit of public IPv4 for my own stuff.

manuel_w 5y ago
> Why would that be relevant here Because it shows how wasteful these companies operate with resources others are in need of.
- xenadu02 5y ago
  It's irrelevant. Even if the authority existed to reclaim all the /8s handed out to private companies (it doesn't) you'd kick the can down the road a few years at best. Then we'd be right back in the same boat. There are only ~4 billion IPv4 addresses. There are more than that many humans alive, most of whom have or will have a smartphone. So we're already short on addresses without considering network equipment, servers, IoT, or anything else.
- assttoasstmgr 5y ago
  If they own the IP space they can do with it as they please. They've had it since 1992. It reminds me of the nouveau urbanists that move into places like SF in droves then instantly start complaining that the little old lady down the street, who has lived in the same house for 50 years, is being greedy and wasteful because she doesn't sell her family home to developers who will build 50 shoebox condos in its place. I suspect most of the "10/8 ought to be enough for anyone" crowd has never worked on a complex enterprise network. Just because a netblock is in use doesn't mean it has to be routable to the Internet. The problem isn't with IBM. The problem is all the cloud BS -- the 18,000th food delivery app that no one asked for -- isn't using IPv6. And that's just pure laziness on the developers' part.

Tsiklon 5y ago

At the same time frame HP did the same with their /8 IIRC

Aloha 5y ago
Ford does the same.

remram 5y ago

My university (11 years ago) was the same. They had a /16, all of which was firewalled and could only access the internet through an HTTP proxy. edit: Just did a quick WHOIS. They still have the /16 even though the university doesn't exist any more (merged with another). Crazy.

onei 5y ago

HP did the same for 15.0.0.0/8 and 16.0.0.0/8 until the HP/HPE split at which point I think they couldn't figure out who should get the address space. As 2 x /8 is pretty valuable, they sold off chunks of it and are presumably still doing so. Ironically, having such addresses was sort of useful when companies got acquired and teams got shifted around. Starting to use an acquired company's network that was never designed with "what if we get acquired and have to play nice with others" in mind causes all sorts of routing pain.

dheera 5y ago

At MIT we had 18.0.0.0/8 until they sold a bunch of it to Amazon.

DonHopkins 5y ago
MIT also had "WTBS" until they sold it to Ted Turner in 1979! It was said to stand for "Wildly Technical Bull Shit". MIT Student Radio WTBS 1964-65. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI2Xx3XSTFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI2Xx3XSTFw WTBS "The Ghetto": Soul-Music Radio Show. Created by Black MIT students in 1970, this radio program gained popularity in the Cambridge/Boston area. https://www.blackhistory.mit.edu/story/wtbs-ghetto https://www.blackhistory.mit.edu/story/wtbs-ghetto Promo for MIT BSU's "The Ghetto" (WTBS 88.1 FM) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wUcHb6FMY8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wUcHb6FMY8

wmf 5y ago

IBM owned 9/8 so this is a legitimate use of address space. All hosts should have globally unique addresses, even if you want to use NAT to hide various things. IBM does multiple acquisitions per year. Imagine merging two corporate networks that both use 10/8; it's a nightmare.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wongarsu 5y ago
The acquisition's IPs might not conflict with IBMs, but surely they conflict with those of the other acquisitions? Is there any benefit after the first acquisition?
- wmf 5y ago
  My point is that if every company uses real IPs then you can merge networks with no conflicts. 10/8 is fine for home use but not for enterprise networks.
  - wongarsu 5y ago
    In a word where any medium sized company could just get a /20 network and any enterprise could get a /8 I would agree, but with IPv4 we live in a world where the vast majority of companies don't have anything but 10/8 (and a couple of IPs for public facing stuff). The only real options besides 10/8 are to have been big at the advent of the internet (like IBM or Apple) or misappropriate one of those IP blocks in the hope it never becomes publicly routable.
    - tpolzer 5y ago
      There's a real option: IPv6 and 464XLAT
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        So use no IPv4s at all? Well that still falls under "all the addresses you assign to machines are real global addresses" I'm sure it's a fine option now but that RFC is pretty new.

beckler 5y ago

GE did the same with 3.0.0.0/8 until they sold it to Amazon. When Amazon started actually using those addresses, it created a situation known internally as the “threepocalypse”.