All,
I just thought this is amusing that in CSI: New York – Season 7, Episode 17, they do a 'Remote Desktop' hack and they enter in the following details…
http://www.eintellego.net/public/CSINY.s07e17-fakev6.jpg
Promoting IPv6 = Win!
Dodgy Address = Fail!
But seriously… That a major TV show is actually using IPv6 addressing (or pretending to) is an awesome thing in my opinion.
…Skeeve
Intentional Fail, probably, similar to how most phone numbers on a TV show are
in the 555 exchange. You put a number on TV, and drunk idiots will call it, as
a number of annoyed people found out after Tommy Tutone had an actual hit
song... 257 seems to be a popular octet value.
(Personally, I'm surprised 148.18.1.193 got used in that image)
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
http://www.eintellego.net/public/CSINY.s07e17-fakev6.jpg
Promoting IPv6 = Win!
Dodgy Address = Fail!Intentional Fail, probably, similar to how most phone numbers on a TV show are
in the 555 exchange. You put a number on TV, and drunk idiots will call it, as
a number of annoyed people found out after Tommy Tutone had an actual hit
song... 257 seems to be a popular octet value.(Personally, I'm surprised 148.18.1.193 got used in that image)
So am I. But I'm surprised 1918 space was used as well. ANY v4 address will get typed into ping or a browser or something by someone if it is on TV. How many corporations have 1918 space that their VPN'ed home users are about to abuse because of that?
Is 127.0.0.1 / ::1 the Internet version of "555"? Or will "I hurt myself, so now I'm going to sue you" mean we can't even use that?
- - --
TTFN,
patrick
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAk2GgTEACgkQznMLL4aoth+u3wCglGK+yrFj3PhI61O78IEqQ40V
KyMAoK0MJ26OxPab10za4LQ6U8qomrPU
=uJz7
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Especially since 148.18 is Department of Defence - but it doesn't seem to be routed at the moment.
...Skeeve
Makes a good change from a 5 octet IP number I remember them using in one episode revolving around an adult webcam website.
Paul
I'm a touch surprised that *you're* asking that question, Patrick. I
figured your chapeau was geriatric enough you'd already know. 
No, there are several reserved stretches of both IPv4 and DNS space
for just such reasons. example.com is the most common and well known,
but see also RFC 3330 and RFC 5737, not necessarily in that order.
Anyone who really *wants* to run nmap on camera has lots of safe networks
to point it at.
Cheers,
-- jra
I remember seeing that show. I think they had Jim Fleming on as a
consultant. ;>
Stefan Fouant
Shhh... don't say his name. I think he Kibozes.
Cheers,
-- jra
See also this thread
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-March/034179.html from
less than two weeks ago for discussion of this in relation to IPv6.
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Is 127.0.0.1 / ::1 the Internet version of "555"? Or will "I hurt myself, so now I'm going to sue you" mean we can't even use that?
It'd be nice if TV producers even knew that not all of 555 was to be used for television shows*, let alone that there's an internet equivalent. Heck, it'd be nice if phone companies knew they weren't supposed to route all of 555 to information (Hi, Global Crossing). I can only assume it's some sort of "stupid tax" for people who dial crap they see on TV.
-Paul
* = http://www.nanpa.com/nas/public/form555MasterReport.do?method=display555MasterReport
Only the range of 0100-0199 is to be used for ficticious use
More curious, for me, is their choice of a hardware vendor: Alacron, Inc. ( http://www.alacron.com/ )
(Source: Address in screenshot: 2002:sc0c:0198:0 ... 22:42ff:fe2d:48563 -- making the MAC prefix ??:22:42. `grep '^..2242' /usr/share/nmap/nmap-mac-prefixes` = "002242 Alacron", double-checked as the only match against the latest http://standards.ieee.org/develop/regauth/oui/oui.txt )
Jima
Not according to the RFC:s.
Given the use of "555" in the (North American) TV world, and the
regularity with which IETF defines specific example resources of
various sorts, one would almost expect there'd be "555"-equivalent
address spaces defined by the IETF already.
I assume it has been discussed and rejected. Can anyone enlighten us on why?
Regards,
Martin
PS. It's quite obvious that it would be announced and point to HTTP
servers serving responses containing various evil things, I guess?
PPS. Didn't know Adobe made web browsers with remote connect clients in them.
RFC 3849?
Nick
172.12.0.0 is not RFC 1918 but it is unallocated.
Tony.
I would have used 192.0.2.0/24. It is the IPv4 version of
--
Ina
Or even anything in 127.55.0.0 should be safe.
In IPv6, I would expect the documentation example (2001:db8::/32) would suffice for the purpose.
This reminds me of the end of the 1995 movie "The Net" where Sandra Bullock captures criminals with an enhanced version of traceroute (or an enhanced version of the Intertubes) that showed some very dodgy IP addresses, and an enhanced version of whois that shows you a picture of the person using a particular IP address.
Apparently that whois client was also licensed to "Law and Order" at some point
jms
