As LogMein says, even with the TMobile and Rogers use, it's extremely
unlikely that their customers will need to communicate with any hosts in
25/8. That said, I absolutely agree that an IPv4 range devoted to VPNs
would be great. I run a personal VPN to my home LAN, and I specifically use
different ranges of RFC 1918 space for the addresses in my home and my VPN.
Cheers,
Andy
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Paul Wouters <paul(_at_)nohats(_dot_)ca>
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012, Sabahattin Gucukoglu wrote:
http://b.logme.in/2012/11/07/**changes-to-hamachi-on-**november-19th/<http://b.logme.in/2012/11/07/changes-to-hamachi-on-november-19th/>
LogMeIn Hamachi is basically a NAT-traversing layer 2 VPN solution. They
avoided conflicts with RFC 1918 space by hijacking IPv4 space in 5/8, now
actively being allocated by LIRs in Europe. When that didn't work (see
link above), they moved to 25/8, allocated to the UK MoD. While I'm almost
sure that they haven't got it quite so wrong this time, following the
comments says that the idea was not only a very bad one to start with, it's
cost a lot of people a lot of grief that IPv6 was clearly going to mitigate
in renumbering. Perhaps it is why they recommend it per default, if not
for the number of applications that would be broken by it.
Both TMobile in the US, and Rogers/Fido in Canada use 25/8. Our IPsec
client per default only allows incoming NAT-T for ranges in RFC1918, due
to security reasons (you don't want them hijacking google's ip range). So
we actually had to add 25/8 to the white list a few years ago.
But, it would be nice to have an IPv4 range dedicated to VPN ranges, so
you can setup things like L2TP tunnels without fear of collision in the
RFC1918 space, although I guess technology has advanced enough to
implement proper segmentation and workarounds for this these days.
Paul