In making a lame joke, I thought up the IP 192.0.2.5.
-
In making a lame joke, I thought up the IP 192.0.2.5. I seem to recall that this subnet (but I thought it was this specific IP) was the default in early Sun Unix systems. Like all the Sun3’s or whatever. And since so many people were using it as their real IP, that’s the reason they had to make this range private.
The way I remember the story is that they created this “documentation” range as an official range as an excuse to block that subnet.
Having searched on the internet a bit, I can’t find any old Internet lore that has anything to do with this. Is any part of what I remember accurate? Was it just the IETF papering over a problem created by Sun’s defaults? Was it something else?
-
In making a lame joke, I thought up the IP 192.0.2.5. I seem to recall that this subnet (but I thought it was this specific IP) was the default in early Sun Unix systems. Like all the Sun3’s or whatever. And since so many people were using it as their real IP, that’s the reason they had to make this range private.
The way I remember the story is that they created this “documentation” range as an official range as an excuse to block that subnet.
Having searched on the internet a bit, I can’t find any old Internet lore that has anything to do with this. Is any part of what I remember accurate? Was it just the IETF papering over a problem created by Sun’s defaults? Was it something else?
@paco 192.0.* isn't private so that might be messing up your search. It's 192.168.*
-
@paco 192.0.* isn't private so that might be messing up your search. It's 192.168.*
-
-
@paco 192.0.* isn't private so that might be messing up your search. It's 192.168.*
-
-
In making a lame joke, I thought up the IP 192.0.2.5. I seem to recall that this subnet (but I thought it was this specific IP) was the default in early Sun Unix systems. Like all the Sun3’s or whatever. And since so many people were using it as their real IP, that’s the reason they had to make this range private.
The way I remember the story is that they created this “documentation” range as an official range as an excuse to block that subnet.
Having searched on the internet a bit, I can’t find any old Internet lore that has anything to do with this. Is any part of what I remember accurate? Was it just the IETF papering over a problem created by Sun’s defaults? Was it something else?
@paco When my employer moved to Sun machines (circa 1995?) for use in our product, we were using 192.9.200.x for the product’s subnet, because that’s what was in the sample Sun code. We weren’t familiar enough with IP addresses to know that this was an actual Sun assigned IP. Wasn’t a problem until a customer hooked this new system to their network (which couldn’t be done with our old stuff) and much confusion and lessons were learned
-
@lanodan @dalias @paco >_> I've got 192.0.2.0/32 bound to the upstream interface on my colo router to facilitate a NAT rule to allow the router external v4 connectivity - upstream interface is v6 only, but I announce a v4 block and NAT traffic sourced from 192.0.2.0 from one of the IPs announced by the router. hacky, but it works. specifically chosen to avoid colliding with rfc1918/6598 space
-
@paco When my employer moved to Sun machines (circa 1995?) for use in our product, we were using 192.9.200.x for the product’s subnet, because that’s what was in the sample Sun code. We weren’t familiar enough with IP addresses to know that this was an actual Sun assigned IP. Wasn’t a problem until a customer hooked this new system to their network (which couldn’t be done with our old stuff) and much confusion and lessons were learned
@mira I was called in to help a big retailer in the UK with some of their AWS stuff. Basically THIRTY years after your story. The customer had hired some consultants to do some work. And they needed private address space for their VPCs. The customer was using 10.0.0.0/8. So the consultants chose the next logical range for their private addressing. 11.0.0.0/8.
-
@mira I was called in to help a big retailer in the UK with some of their AWS stuff. Basically THIRTY years after your story. The customer had hired some consultants to do some work. And they needed private address space for their VPCs. The customer was using 10.0.0.0/8. So the consultants chose the next logical range for their private addressing. 11.0.0.0/8.
-
@mira I was called in to help a big retailer in the UK with some of their AWS stuff. Basically THIRTY years after your story. The customer had hired some consultants to do some work. And they needed private address space for their VPCs. The customer was using 10.0.0.0/8. So the consultants chose the next logical range for their private addressing. 11.0.0.0/8.
@paco Consultants. Gotta hate ‘em. At least my employer had the excuse of being new at using commodity standards and products for networking (everything was custom prior). To make a mistake like that well into the 21st century, wow.
-
R relay@relay.an.exchange shared this topic
