whois on 172.0.0.0 will tell you On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. <otis@ocosa.com> wrote:

Dan,

Can you provide a link to support this? If this is true, I wonder how this will work.

Otis -----Original Message----- From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated

172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet Services.

-- Dan White

On 8/23/2012 1:29 AM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:

Dan,

Can you provide a link to support this?

http://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=172.0.0.0?showDetails=true

If this is true, I wonder how this will work.

Otis -----Original Message----- From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated

172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet Services.

On 8/23/12, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 00:29:22 -0500, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." said:

...

172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet Services. Why shouldn't it work? RFC1918 space is 172.16/12, there's no overlap.

I know that, you know that. but 172.0.0.1 is a common typo of 127.0.01 And there are apparently a lot of people running around using 172.0.0.0/24 in examples, or erroneously saying it's part of a range reserved for private networks. https://www.google.com/search?q="172.0.0.0%2F24"+howto&ie=utf-8 So I would say they've come into posession of a rather undesirable piece of IP address real-estate, as it were. -- -Mysid

Why do you think it doesn't work? Отправлено с iPhone 23.08.2012, в 9:29, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis@ocosa.com> написал(а):

Dan,

Can you provide a link to support this? If this is true, I wonder how this will work.

Otis -----Original Message----- From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated

172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet Services.

-- Dan White

You can do a whois search at arin.net to see the allocation. 172.0.0.0/12 is often confused with the private 172.16.0.0/12 address space, which I would consider a 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' allocation. I also noticed a couple of subnets in that range showing up in the weekly Cidr reports, beginning in July. On 08/23/12 00:29 -0500, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:

Dan,

Can you provide a link to support this? If this is true, I wonder how this will work.

Otis -----Original Message----- From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated

172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet Services.

-- Dan White

My apologies again, I saw it as 127.0.0.0. and not 172.0.0.0. I've been working long hours last couple nights. Yeah you are probably right, since they to pulled that one very close to RFC1918. http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4-stats/allocated-arin.html I would hate to be AT&T for this IP allocation. Heck, I would simple push more IPv6 if I were them. -----Original Message----- From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:37 AM To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr. Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated You can do a whois search at arin.net to see the allocation. 172.0.0.0/12 is often confused with the private 172.16.0.0/12 address space, which I would consider a 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' allocation. I also noticed a couple of subnets in that range showing up in the weekly Cidr reports, beginning in July. On 08/23/12 00:29 -0500, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:

Dan,

Can you provide a link to support this? If this is true, I wonder how this will work.

Otis -----Original Message----- From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated

172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet Services.

-- Dan White

I wonder if ATT will be returning some of those /16 and /15 allocations it has in return for the /12 - http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/SIS-80/nets How does one suddenly justify needing 1,000,000 more IP addresses (explosive expected growth in the next couple months?) --Blake Owen DeLong wrote the following on 8/23/2012 1:29 AM:

AT&T should just be glad there was a /12 for them to get.

That isn't going to be true for much longer.

If you are counting on an IPv4 free pool to run your business next year, you are making a bad bet.

Owen

On Aug 22, 2012, at 22:54 , "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis@ocosa.com> wrote:

...

My apologies again, I saw it as 127.0.0.0. and not 172.0.0.0.

I've been working long hours last couple nights. Yeah you are probably right, since they to pulled that one very close to RFC1918.

http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4-stats/allocated-arin.html

I would hate to be AT&T for this IP allocation. Heck, I would simple push more IPv6 if I were them.

-----Original Message----- From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:37 AM To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr. Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated

You can do a whois search at arin.net to see the allocation.

172.0.0.0/12 is often confused with the private 172.16.0.0/12 address space, which I would consider a 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' allocation.

I also noticed a couple of subnets in that range showing up in the weekly Cidr reports, beginning in July.

On 08/23/12 00:29 -0500, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:

...

Dan,

Can you provide a link to support this? If this is true, I wonder how this will work.

Otis -----Original Message----- From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated

172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet Services. -- Dan White

On 8/23/12 7:18 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:

On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:

...

How does one suddenly justify needing 1,000,000 more IP addresses (explosive expected growth in the next couple months?)

I can easily see people moving through those IPs in short order if you have a datacenter or other deployment you are working on. I've heard stories from some of the popular sites about how they have consumed all the 'private' space for their internal-side servers/infrastructure so started to go after public IPs (in addition to IPv6) to workaround the problem.

AT&T hasn't seen the wireline subscriber growth, but I'm sure their wireless side, datacenter, and other needs are driving growth.

I would really hope that wireless providers are planning for IPv6 instead, although a recent thread about Sprint LTE indicates maybe this is wishful thinking. I know Verizon is but the single LTE MiFi I have doesn't do IPv6, but I've seen customers with Verizon phones coming in over IPv6. ~Seth

IMO the justifcation is probably in other areas of their business like cloud services, data center, etc. Obvisouly, it was compelling enough to warrant ARIN's approval for allocation of the space in the last stretch of IPv4. All /16 and larger requests goes to IPv4 review team anyway. So, again I bet it was almost all cloud/data center stuff. Unless they are launching some new kind of service or it's a market specific allocation. Judging from the ARIN IPv4 Space Available counter actually looks like ARIN might in Phase 2 now of the countdown but I am not sure. Otis -----Original Message----- From: Blake Hudson [mailto:blake@ispn.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:04 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated I wonder if ATT will be returning some of those /16 and /15 allocations it has in return for the /12 - http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/SIS-80/nets How does one suddenly justify needing 1,000,000 more IP addresses (explosive expected growth in the next couple months?) --Blake Owen DeLong wrote the following on 8/23/2012 1:29 AM:

AT&T should just be glad there was a /12 for them to get.

That isn't going to be true for much longer.

If you are counting on an IPv4 free pool to run your business next year, you are making a bad bet.

Owen

On Aug 22, 2012, at 22:54 , "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." <otis@ocosa.com> wrote:

...

My apologies again, I saw it as 127.0.0.0. and not 172.0.0.0.

I've been working long hours last couple nights. Yeah you are probably right, since they to pulled that one very close to RFC1918.

http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4-stats/allocated-arin.html

I would hate to be AT&T for this IP allocation. Heck, I would simple push more IPv6 if I were them.

-----Original Message----- From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:37 AM To: Otis L. Surratt, Jr. Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated

You can do a whois search at arin.net to see the allocation.

172.0.0.0/12 is often confused with the private 172.16.0.0/12 address space, which I would consider a 'scraping the bottom of the barrel' allocation.

I also noticed a couple of subnets in that range showing up in the weekly Cidr reports, beginning in July.

On 08/23/12 00:29 -0500, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:

...

Dan,

Can you provide a link to support this? If this is true, I wonder how this will work.

Otis -----Original Message----- From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated

172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet Services. -- Dan White

Owen DeLong wrote:

AT&T should just be glad there was a /12 for them to get.

That isn't going to be true for much longer.

If you are counting on an IPv4 free pool to run your business next year, you are making a bad bet.

The 16777214 IP addresses (give or take) in their 12/8 assignment aren't enough? Oh wait, it's probably used internally and renumbering to 10/8 would be too big a hurdle to take. ;-) -- Earthquake Magnitude: 5.0 Date: Thursday, August 23, 2012 16:30:23 UTC Location: Nepal Latitude: 28.4991; Longitude: 82.6930 Depth: 38.30 km

joel jaeggli wrote:

On 8/23/12 2:11 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:

...

it's probably used internally and renumbering to 10/8 would be too big a hurdle to take. ;-) show route 12.0.0.0/8

...

That was mostly tongue in cheek. I was remembering the reasons people on here brought up why /8 legacy assignments couldn't be given back, a major reason was that it could be used for internal networking and renumbering was too big an effort. Greetings, Jeroen -- Earthquake Magnitude: 5.0 Date: Thursday, August 23, 2012 16:30:23 UTC Location: Nepal Latitude: 28.4991; Longitude: 82.6930 Depth: 38.30 km

folk should remember that ARIN publishes an RSS feed of allocations/deallocations... http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-issued/2012-August/001348.html (well, a mailing-list which has an rss feed... which reader.google seems to like just fine...) On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. <otis@ocosa.com> wrote:

Dan,

Can you provide a link to support this? If this is true, I wonder how this will work.

Otis -----Original Message----- From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite@olp.net] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:24 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: 172.0.0.0/12 has been Allocated

172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet Services.

-- Dan White

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Ray Soucy wrote:

Funny,

Saw this post come through this morning; then got call today for ASA configuration help ... I noticed the guy had configured his ASA to use "private" networks of 172.100.0.0/24 and 172.200.0.0/24 ... I reminded him that they don't fall within RFC1918 but the response was "oh well, I don't care"

I don't think AT&T will have much luck with that space if this is typical (something tells me it is). I wonder how AOL does with it.

It's typical...but not contained within the "looks sort of like 1918 space" networks. Do enough network support and you'll run into similar stuff from time to time. Fortunately, the damage is limited to the idiots using IPs picked from their (or worse, they're overpaid/underqualified consultants) asses not being able to reach the actual assignees of those spaces. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________