172.0.0.0-172.15.255.255 was allocated on 2012-08-20 to AT&T Internet
Services.
Dan,
Can you provide a link to support this?
If this is true, I wonder how this will work.
Otis
whois on 172.0.0.0 will tell you
Dan,
Can you provide a link to support this?
http://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=172.0.0.0?showDetails=true
Why shouldn't it work? RFC1918 space is 172.16/12, there's no overlap.
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):
owen.delong.com:owen /home4/owen (102) % whois -h whois.arin.net 172.0.0.0
[Querying whois.arin.net]
[whois.arin.net]
I've been working too long.....in my mind I was seeing 127.0.0.0 which I
was like wow a violation.
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.
Tests to see how bad /8 filters were before allocating the /12?
Just curious...
George William Herbert
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.
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.
The days when undesirability of a given ipv4 unicast prefix would play a significant role in assignment policy are pretty much coming to a close.
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
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:
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.
- Jared
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
Not quite...
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv4_countdown.html
Currently we are in phase 1.
The team review you mention does not start until we reach Phase 2 (3 /8s remaining). In Phase 1, it only requires senior analyst and/or department director approval.
I'll leave speculation as to what AT&T will do with the addresses to others.
Owen
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
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.
if you stick the sim from your mifi in a usb dongle such as the lg-vl600 you get a v6 address on the same service.
it's been that way since 2010.