nanog mailing list archives
Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24
From: borg () uu3 net
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 15:16:09 +0200 (CEST)
No, I am not confusing those two. Actually, Im using 192.0.2.0 as well here, for server's internal SNAT. Okey, I checked that registry and there is nothing I care about. It seems the choice to using 192.0.0.0/24 internally at desktop was smart enough ;) Thx for info. ---------- Original message ---------- From: John Kristoff <jtk () dataplane org> To: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24 Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 07:29:54 -0500 On Tue, 14 May 2024 12:00:15 +0200 (CEST) borg () uu3 net wrote:
Was RFC5736 obsoleted?
No.
Its a nice tiny subnet for special purposes. I personaly use it
Are you confusing this with 192.0.2.0/24? 192.0.0.0/24 is occasionally updated with new assignments drawn from it. Just be aware you're potentially colliding with some other, new use in that range. John
Current thread:
- On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24 John Kristoff (May 13)
- Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24 borg (May 14)
- Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24 John Kristoff (May 14)
- Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24 borg (May 14)
- Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24 John Kristoff (May 14)
- Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24 John Kristoff (May 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24 Jakob Heitz (jheitz) via NANOG (May 14)
- Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24 Tom Beecher (May 14)
- Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24 borg (May 14)
- Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24 Warren Kumari (May 14)
- Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24 Tom Beecher (May 14)
- Re: On consistency and 192.0.0.0/24 borg (May 14)