1.0.0.0 /8 is not a private IP space

[alkemyst]

Many especially in the wireless world I see use 1.1.1.1 for a private IP.

Not many know, but in 2010 IANA gave the 1.1.1.0 /8 space to APNIC (Asia Pacific Network Information Centre).

Some textbooks even have used this address in the past.

Just an FYI.

 

[imagoon]

Yeah but I they would have to be insane to actually use 1.1.1.1 since it was used for this. It might become a defacto reserved address.

 

[kevnich2]

Maybe they didn't get the memo that 1.1.1.1 is NOT the same as 10.1.1.1 ?? I only used strict private IP subnets for private uses. Otherwise you're asking for problems.

 

[drebo]

One of Cisco's reference architectures at one point used 1.1.1.1 as the captive portal address for their controllers. Because of that, there are umpteen hundreds of wireless networks that also use it.

However, I've seen worse. I have a customer now that's 192.50.x.x.

 

[alkemyst]

One of Cisco's reference architectures at one point used 1.1.1.1 as the captive portal address for their controllers. Because of that, there are umpteen hundreds of wireless networks that also use it.

However, I've seen worse. I have a customer now that's 192.50.x.x.

QFT...I have seen a lot of errors with those that want to pick the 'trendy' 172 address space since 'everyone' uses 10.x.x.x or 192.168.1.x

I am learning more from an engineering stand now, I was an administrator for a long time.

We seem to have seen this crap that many never do.

 

[alkemyst]

Yeah but I they would have to be insane to actually use 1.1.1.1 since it was used for this. It might become a defacto reserved address.

Maybe they didn't get the memo that 1.1.1.1 is NOT the same as 10.1.1.1 ?? I only used strict private IP subnets for private uses. Otherwise you're asking for problems.

The thing is at least in the Wireless world (I only have a CCNA-Wireless, but even I have seen using 1.1.1.1 for controllers as proper), this comes up a lot.

These addresses are not always routable apparently on APNIC.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Haha funny people would think that. I've always used 10.x.x.x and 192.168.x.x. There's another range too 172 or something like that but it's rarely used. Another interesting fact that people don't know is that 127.0.0.1 is actually a /8. 127.4.5.7 or any other numbers you put is localhost too. Who's bright idea was it to waste an entire class A for localhost? lol. Though technically if you had some kind of local app that listens on a port you could probably bind it to a specific IP so you can have the same port opened under multiple instances. So probably why they did that.

 

[alkemyst]

Haha funny people would think that. I've always used 10.x.x.x and 192.168.x.x. There's another range too 172 or something like that but it's rarely used. Another interesting fact that people don't know is that 127.0.0.1 is actually a /8. 127.4.5.7 or any other numbers you put is localhost too. Who's bright idea was it to waste an entire class A for localhost? lol. Though technically if you had some kind of local app that listens on a port you could probably bind it to a specific IP so you can have the same port opened under multiple instances. So probably why they did that.

In a big enough enterprise, having a ton of local host addresses would probably be important.

 

[Railgun]

We use it for loopbacks on terminal servers all the time and all over the place. In the real world, it doesn't matter.

 

[PliotronX]

First time I've heard of it, good heads up.

 

[imagoon]

Just wait until they open up "Class E" That will be another fun one.

 

[imagoon]

The thing is at least in the Wireless world (I only have a CCNA-Wireless, but even I have seen using 1.1.1.1 for controllers as proper), this comes up a lot.

These addresses are not always routable apparently on APNIC.

I would expect 1.1.1.1 to route, I just meant it would be silly to use 1.1.1.1 to serve pages at the moment.

I guess someone could be a real dick and set up an Cisco or Aruba controller on that IP. I am sure that would be amusing.

 

[alkemyst]

We use it for loopbacks on terminal servers all the time and all over the place. In the real world, it doesn't matter.

Well, except people in the real world have had trouble with it and so has APNIC.

 

[alkemyst]

I would expect 1.1.1.1 to route, I just meant it would be silly to use 1.1.1.1 to serve pages at the moment.

I guess someone could be a real dick and set up an Cisco or Aruba controller on that IP. I am sure that would be amusing.

APNIC is indeed having those kinds of issues.

 

[Gryz]

Just wait until they open up "Class E" That will be another fun one.

Lots of code used to consider Class E space "martian". That means routers will drop packets towards those addresses. Regardless of configuration. I don't think we can ever start using class E for regular purposes.

 

[serpretetsky]

I would expect 1.1.1.1 to route, I just meant it would be silly to use 1.1.1.1 to serve pages at the moment.

I guess someone could be a real dick and set up an Cisco or Aruba controller on that IP. I am sure that would be amusing.

hah, that would be awesome! Do these pages typically have passwords the admin has to enter?

 

[alkemyst]

hah, that would be awesome! Do these pages typically have passwords the admin has to enter?

Typically most controllers always require credentials, however; the defaults are easy to learn and if not changed would allow access.

The thing is throwing up devices on IPs that don't belong to you is a surefire way to get you bumped off the internet.

 

[imagoon]

Well 1.1.1.1 is often the guest logon or the "wireless logon" page so it could be interesting if you were a dick and just served a cisco or aruba look alike. You could then harvest the passwords. On all the devices I used however admin logons were required to happen on the management IP which wouldn't be 1.1.1.1. At least the ones I worked on did it that way....

 

[imagoon]

Lots of code used to consider Class E space "martian". That means routers will drop packets towards those addresses. Regardless of configuration. I don't think we can ever start using class E for regular purposes.

It is just a coding problem. If they announced it, support would have to come eventually. I know Cisco unlocked the "experimental" ranges quite a few IOS revs ago. I think Juniper / HP did the same.

 

[alkemyst]

It is just a coding problem. If they announced it, support would have to come eventually. I know Cisco unlocked the "experimental" ranges quite a few IOS revs ago. I think Juniper / HP did the same.

AFAIK Class E is supported too.

This is all rare stuff, but rare stuff can have you not sleeping for 20 hours or more.