I am not sure why 10.64.0.0/10 is being discussed instead of 10.128/10 or
10.192/10... but let's assume we picked 10.192.0.0/10 instead. I'm sitting at
home and my laptop currently has this interface:
inet 10.2XX.XXX.XXX netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.2XX.XXX.XXX
[specific digits replaced with "X" for paranoid reasons in case my IT dept.
freaks]
Note that's a VPN connection interface not on-the-wire, but it shows at least
my company uses that space, and I know my company uses 10.x.x.x as well as
172.16/12 in their various internal HQ and branch office networks.
In fact, this is my laptop's netstat -r output for IPv4 (again somewhat
anonymized):
default 192.168.1.1 UGSc 12 0 en1
10.3X.XXX/24 link#9 UC 1 0 vnic1
10.3X.XXX.XXX 0:1c:42:0:0:9 UHLWIi 1 5 lo0
10.2XX.XXX/24 link#8 UC 1 0 vnic0
10.2XX.XXX.XXX 0:1c:42:0:0:8 UHLWIi 1 5 lo0
127 localhost UCS 0 6 lo0
localhost localhost UH 0 393 lo0
169.254 link#5 UCS 0 0 en1
172.30.0.0 10.0.XXX.XXX UH 0 0 gif0
172.30 gif0 USc 1 0 gif0
192.168.1 link#5 UCS 2 0 en1
192.168.1.1 0:12:17:e1:8e:ab UHLWIi 13 2 en1 1166
192.168.1.102 c4:2c:3:2:c5:ee UHLWIi 0 39 en1 1179
192.168.1.107 localhost UHS 1 1 lo0
So you tell me how safe picking a specific RFC 1918 address space is. There
are ~100,000 enterprises with over 100 employees just in the US, and ~20,000
with over 500 employees in the US. Obviously my company is a tech company so
it's probably not "normal", but still it seems obvious enterprises use random
10.x.x.x and 172.16/12.
-hadriel
On Dec 3, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
Ralph:
Is there evidence that there are deployments today of devices that use
addresses in 10.64.0.0/10?
I have seen addresses in this space used.
Russ
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf