Re: Easily confused...
--- nanog@jima.tk wrote: From: Jima <nanog@jima.tk> On 2011-04-16 20:06, Michael Painter wrote:
Brielle Bruns wrote:
I'm assuming your provider's network engineers (stupidly) assumed 123.x.x.x was a good idea for use in a private setup because it hadn't been assigned from the global pool (yet).
Wouldn't be the first provider or service to not use proper RFC assigned private IP space for their internal networking setup.
Apologies...missed operative word 'internal'.<s>
I was about to reply pointing that out. FWIW, they're not announcing that space, so I definitely agree with the poorly-thought-out private infrastructure theory. http://bgp.he.net/AS36149#_prefixes FWIW. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- When I was last there there was a definite lack of folks with hands-on experience managing that size of address space: a /15 and two /16s plus some swamp. Further there're a lot of companies that contract to them that suggest these things and the contractor's advice is always faithfully followed, so any blame will go to the vendor if trouble happens due to design flaws. Making waves by saying this or that is wrong definitely gets one into hot water... ;-) -----------------------------------------------------------
They are testing IPTV on Oahu in preperation for roll-out, so maybe they renumbered in order to more easily identify the segments.(?)
Really, I'd have hoped they'd use their two-year-old 2607:f9a0::/32 for anything that ambitious...but I might be wishing for too much. (Also, that 123 block seems to have been allocated in 2006, so it'd be even more unprofessional to start projects with that space since then.) -------------------------------------------------------- I'm the one that got this space for them, but allocation of folks to IPv6 roll out was minimal due the the upcoming IPTV roll out. I was the lone IPv6 voice in the company for a long time, but when I left there was gaining interest in IPv6 strategies. Not enough netgeeks and too many projects rolling out. scott
On 4/18/2011 2:53 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------
They are testing IPTV on Oahu in preperation for roll-out, so maybe they renumbered in order to more easily identify the segments.(?)
Really, I'd have hoped they'd use their two-year-old 2607:f9a0::/32 for anything that ambitious...but I might be wishing for too much. (Also, that 123 block seems to have been allocated in 2006, so it'd be even more unprofessional to start projects with that space since then.) --------------------------------------------------------
I'm the one that got this space for them, but allocation of folks to IPv6 roll out was minimal due the the upcoming IPTV roll out. I was the lone IPv6 voice in the company for a long time, but when I left there was gaining interest in IPv6 strategies. Not enough netgeeks and too many projects rolling out.
scott
With the crudiness of the IPTV middleware aimed for smaller deployments, I'd expect nothing less than blank stares if you mention IPv6 multicast. Not to mention it would probably not work for 5 years.
On 4/19/11 3:30 AM, ML wrote:
With the crudiness of the IPTV middleware aimed for smaller deployments, I'd expect nothing less than blank stares if you mention IPv6 multicast. Not to mention it would probably not work for 5 years.
NTT's deployment of globally scoped but not internet connected v6 addresses in support v6 multicast has been breaking my v6 connectivity in some residential settings on trips to japan since at least 2007, they appear to have the television part nailed however.
participants (3)
-
Joel Jaeggli -
ML -
Scott Weeks