[181164] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Damian Menscher via NANOG)
Wed Jun 17 20:07:25 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CADR+d4b4AZXGy4BvcemXsGrdMFmJ598XX27NZpj8hz7X871ykg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:07:01 -0700
To: luan.nguyen@dimensiondata.com
From: Damian Menscher via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: Damian Menscher <damian@google.com>
Cc: NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Not used in the sense you imagine, but I designed a hack where we hash IPv6
addresses into 224/3 (class D and E space) so backends that don't support
IPv6 can still be provided a pseudo-IP. This accelerated support of IPv6
across all Google services without needing to wait for each individual
backend to provide support.
See
https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog50/presentations/Wednesday/NANOG50.Talk41.colitti-IPv6%20transition%20experiences.pdf
slide 4 for a description, or
http://docs.guava-libraries.googlecode.com/git/javadoc/com/google/common/net/InetAddresses.html
for open-sourced code.
There may be other uses for IPs beyond routing.
Damian
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...
>
