[181151] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eduardo Schoedler)
Wed Jun 17 17:34:12 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CADR+d4ZJypNAcm1Z1ooUWYhMxapyxHfA1Qr8fSLqM2Jn=_gQ=A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:30:04 -0300
From: Eduardo Schoedler <listas@esds.com.br>
To: Luan Nguyen <luan.nguyen@dimensiondata.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
And what about 0.0.0.0/8?
--
Eduardo Schoedler
2015-06-17 18:21 GMT-03:00 Luan Nguyen <luan.nguyen@dimensiondata.com>:
> Cisco IOS-XE Fails
> ip add 241.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
> Not a valid host address - 241.1.1.1
> ip route 241.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 10.10.10.1
> %Invalid destination prefix
> XR-OS : fails
> Can take the IP on a interface, but cant route it
> IOS fails
>
> we used up all the reserved ip blocks including the 169.254 and the
> benchmark, and the 100.64/10 and ofcourse the RFC1918.
> Lots of apps don't do ipv6 so we are finding interim solution...i guess
> that's karma since doing so sort of anti-facilitating the use of ipv6 :)
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Luan Nguyen <lnguyen@opsource.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Is that safe to use internally? Anyone using it?
> > > Just for NATTING on Cisco gears...
> > >
> >
> > most things, including most cisco gear, will not forward those Class E
> > packets or accept Class E as a valid address
> >
> > If you have success, please report it to the list.
> >
>
--
Eduardo Schoedler
