- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
by David Barak 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

--- On Mon, 2/2/09, David Coulson <david(a)davidcoulson.net> wrote: > I'm curious - Any particular > technical reason not to assign out of 0.0.0.0/8? Can't say > I've ever tried to use it, but I'd think it should work. I have long wondered why two entire /8s are reserved for host self identification (0 and 127, of course...) - it's too bad that we can't use either those or class E space while folks {delay | prepare for} ipv6 adoption... David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com

2 1

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
by Johnny Eriksson 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

"Paul Stewart" <pstewart(a)nexicomgroup.net> wrote: > What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a > closed network? It's very bad practice - unfortunately I do see it done > sometimes.... Really really LARGE scalability testing that needs more addresses than RFC1918 gives you. In a closed lab. Yes, it is ugly. Been there. Sometimes ugly can not be avoided. > Paul --Johnny

2 1

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
by Roger Marquis 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > Right. One side needs to change a config file in their DHCP server and > maybe their internal DNS. If they need to change much more than that > then its time for a network re-engineering anyway. That, IME, is the real issue here. The re/engineering that should be part of an M&A is too often under-budgeted. There is not enough staff, time, or budget to do the needful as it were. Same thing occurs across IT. In most cases we see it as deferred maintenance. Hardware and software upgrades, routing updates, security, etc. are all a hard sell when the network is working fine and some other department can better demonstrate a need for budget. In all of these cases IT management needs to make the case, submit the CYAs, and let C-levels take it from there. Be glad you're a network engineer. Deferred maintenance is much more of a problem on the systems administration side of IT. One of the largest ISPs I know has state of the art networks but its server farms are running an OS that has been out of support for years. One of the largest schools I know ran their entire email infrastructure on hardware that hadn't been upgradable for years... all with predictable results. Roger Marquis

1 0

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
by David Barak 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

--- On Mon, 2/2/09, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick(a)ianai.net> wrote: > > Most ISP's, if not all, null route 1.0.0.0/8 therefore > you shouldn't > > encounter any problems using it in a private network. > > Until IANA runs out and gives that space to Google or MS or > Comcast or $WHATEVER_THAT_NETWORK_TALKS_TO. It all comes down to "what do you mean by 'private network'" doesn't it? If you operate an IP network which is air-gapped from all other IP networks, which IP address you use is irrelevant. If that network interconnects with (only) a provider/customer using RFC 1918 space, you either have to coordinate with them, NAT, or use non-RFC 1918 space. If you run a network which should only communicate with others through a proxy/firewall/NAT device, how much does it matter what's on the inside? Of course, the risk of using IP addresses which are not uniquely assigned to you is that there will be an overlap somewhere. Whether the risk is greater inside or outside of RFC 1918, I leave for others to puzzle out (although it should be noted that organizational M&A activity makes hash of the best-laid IP address schema). David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com

1 0

RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
by Skywing 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

If you get an address reservation from a registry, then you could certainly use that space in a way that doesn't entail globally-reachable routing. In fact, IIRC one of the RFCs explicitly mentions this possibility in the event that overlapping private use address space usage makes interconnection between two networks otherwise unworkable. However, as everyone else had assumed you might be doing, "borrowing" unassigned or assigned-to-someone-else (for which all "unassigned" can eventually be expected to devolve into) is unwise. – S -----Original Message----- From: Trey Darley <trey(a)kingfisherops.com> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 07:48 To: nanog(a)nanog.org <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Hi, y'all - Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been allocated we are pondering the use of public IP space. As the network in question is strictly closed I don't anticipate any problems with this as the addresses would be unambiguous within our environment. I'm curious if anyone else is doing this. I'd be very interested in corresponding off-list with anyone who's in a similar position. Cheers, --Trey ++----------------------------------------------------------------------------++ Kingfisher Operations Trey Darley - Principal

1 0

Images from DR and NANOG45
by Pete Templin 02 Feb '09

02 Feb '09

NANOG, Here's my compilation of photos from NANOG45 and the Dominican Republic. Most are taken by my girlfriend and I; some taken by others enjoying a chance to experiment. :) Feel free to share with anyone you wish, download, etc.. http://photos.templin.org/gallery/nanog45 Disclaimer: I'm learning HDR techniques, so some of my HDRs leave a bunch to be desired. Pete

1 0

All Google Search Results: "This site may harm your computer."
by Peter Beckman 01 Feb '09

01 Feb '09

This morning whilest Googling, I got a bunch of "Permission Denied" to "/interstitial?..." URLs on Google. Then all my search results got listed as "This site may harm your computer." Is Google broken, or is the functionality of listing sites as broken, broken? http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/423476/google-broken.gif Beckman --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Beckman Internet Guy beckman(a)angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

24 30

Re: Google search results leading to google "This site may harm your computer"
by aljuhani 31 Jan '09

31 Jan '09

Now clicking search results forward to "service unavailable" page within google. The error message about the site may harm your computer is also displayed in Arabic on google Saudi Arabia, www.google.com.sa image here: http://ns.mx04.com/google-sa.jpg looks like the whole database is gone! ..... Yahoo! search engine seem to be working fine as looks have no affiliation with google ----- Original Message ----- From: Jason Biel To: info(a)linuxmount.com Cc: nanog Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 18:12 Subject: Re: Google search results leading to google "This site may harm your computer" Looks like they are experiencing some "internal" issue.

4 3

News on Google fault
by aljuhani 31 Jan '09

31 Jan '09

Washington Post: Google: This Internet May Harm Your Computer: A glitch in a computer security program embedded deeply into Google's search engine briefly prevented users of the popular search engine from visiting any Web sites turned up in search results this morning. Instead, Google users were redirected to page that warned: "This site may harm your computer." ---also--- Update, 11:46 a.m.: Stopbadware.org, the consortium of industry and academia leaders that handles the database of sites Google lists as harmful, issued the following statement: "This morning, an apparent glitch at Google caused nearly every [update 11:44 am] search listing to carry the "Warning! This site may harm your computer" message. Users who attempted to click through the results saw the "interstitial" warning page that mentions the possibility of badware and refers people to StopBadware.org for more information. This led to a denial of service of our website, as millions of Google users attempted to visit our site for more information. We are working now to bring the site back up. We are also awaiting word from Google about what happened to cause the false warnings." ---full news link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/01/google_this_internet_w… -aljuhani

1 0

Re: Google search results leading to google "This site may harm your computer"
by aljuhani 31 Jan '09

31 Jan '09

Thanks for the notice. Possibly because of the URL contained in the message and/or as appear to be in html format as composed initially under OE and the copied to another mail client. Gmail support notice: http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=8253 If our system flags a message as phishing, but you've validated the source from which the message originated, click the down arrow next to Reply at the top-right of the message pane, and select Report Not Phishing to let us know the message is legitimate. And if you receive a message that our phishing detection system doesn't pick up on, click Report Phishing to send a copy of the message to the Gmail Team. -aljuhani ----- Original Message ----- From: Alexander Harrowell To: info(a)linuxmount.com Cc: nanog Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 19:12 Subject: Re: Google search results leading to google "This site may harm your computer" GMail classified this as phishing. On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:34 PM, aljuhani <info(a)linuxmount.com> wrote: Now clicking search results forward to "service unavailable" page within google. The error message about the site may harm your computer is also displayed in Arabic on google Saudi Arabia, www.google.com.sa image here: http://ns.mx04.com/google-sa.jpg looks like the whole database is gone! ..... Yahoo! search engine seem to be working fine as looks have no affiliation with google

1 0