|
As we are running out of IPv4 address space, many networks, instead of embracing IPv6, stretch existing IPv4 space via multiple levels of NAT. NAT then uses "reserved" IP address space. However, there are more address ranges reserved then listed in RFC1918, and not all of them should be used in internal networks. Here is a (probably incomplete) list of address ranges that are reserved, and which once are usable inside your network behind a NAT gateway.
Most interesting in this context is RFC6598 (100.64.0.0/10), which was recently assigned to provide ISPs with a range for NAT that is not going to conflict with their customers NAT networks. It has been a more and more common problem that NAT'ed networks once connected with each other via for example a VPN tunnel, have conflicting assignments. Which networks did I forget? I will update the table for a couple days as comments come in. ------ |
Johannes 3551 Posts ISC Handler |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Subscribe |
May 16th 2012 7 years ago |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wikipedia has a similar list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_IP_addresses that also addresses IPv6.
|
Dean 135 Posts |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quote |
May 16th 2012 7 years ago |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See also RFC3330 and this summary-
http://www.caida.org/~youngh/bogons.html |
Dean 2 Posts |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quote |
May 16th 2012 7 years ago |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm a ham, but frankly I think it's time to look very carefully at the AMPRnet, which has 44.0.0.0/8 assigned to it and is quickly being deprecated. Not saying it should go completely, but I'm quite positive there are "huge tracts of land" that could be assigned out of it.
Anyway, 44.128/16 is considered a test network for AMPRnet and not routable, much like 10/8, so it should certainly be reasonable to consider using it at least. |
Dean 4 Posts |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quote |
May 16th 2012 7 years ago |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.dynamicnet.net/2012/04/ipv4-shortage-impact-isps-data-centers-hosting-providers/ is our take.
The ugly part is that not everything is IPv6 compatible; and this needs to be as much bottom to top as top to bottom. |
Dean 2 Posts |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quote |
May 17th 2012 7 years ago |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure of the exact status, but 128.66.0.0/16 is still listed in alot of places as a not valid address.
|
Michael 1 Posts |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quote |
May 17th 2012 7 years ago |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
128.66.0.0/16 has been assigned and is now routed by AS24608
RFC 5735 obsoleted/updates RFC 3330 44.0.0.0/8 is still considered AMPRNET according to Whois. I think the use of 44.128.0.0/16 as non-routable test net is an AMPRNET policy. I wasn't able to find an official reference to it yet. |
Johannes 3551 Posts ISC Handler |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quote |
May 17th 2012 7 years ago |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The 239.0.0.0/8 range is assigned by RFC 2365 for private use within an organization.
|
Anonymous |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quote |
Feb 29th 2016 3 years ago |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Too bad that the ranges from 224/8 on up can not easily be reclaimed.. they grossly overestimated the popularity of multicast applications, which led to huge assigned but unused netblocks.
Also, I find it rather sad that the companies that were so graciously handed one or several /8 ranges can not be bothered to return at least a part of them. |
Visi 41 Posts |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Quote |
Mar 3rd 2016 3 years ago |
Sign Up for Free or Log In to start participating in the conversation!
