User comments on ISPs
  >> Hyperoptic


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


  Print Thread
Standard User prlzx
(experienced) Sat 01-Jul-17 16:23:00
Print Post

Anyone else seeing RFC1918 addresses in external routes?


[link to this post]
 
2. 172.16.25.106                                     0.0%    10    3.6   4.5   3.4  11.5   2.5
 3. 172.17.1.204                                      0.0%    10    1.6   1.8   1.5   3.0   0.6
 4. 172.16.18.226                                     0.0%    10    0.9   1.0   0.9   1.4   0.2
 5. ae2-775.cr1-man1.ip4.gtt.net                      0.0%    10    5.9  14.5   5.9  71.2  20.9
 6. et-0-0-0-0.cr10-lon1.ip4.gtt.net                  0.0%    10    7.3  19.1   6.4 122.6  36.4
 7. 72.14.221.145                                     0.0%    10    6.2   6.2   6.0   6.4   0.1
 8. ???
 9. 216.239.57.77                                     0.0%    10   10.2   7.6   7.2  10.2   0.9
10. google-public-dns-a.google.com                    0.0%    10    7.3   7.0   6.9   7.3   0.1




prompt $P - Invalid drive specification - Abort, Retry, Fail? $G
prlzx on iDNET: ADSL2+ / 21CN at ~4Mbps / 700kbps with IP4/6
Standard User locutus
(experienced) Sat 01-Jul-17 18:56:04
Print Post

Re: Anyone else seeing RFC1918 addresses in external routes?


[re: prlzx] [link to this post]
 
It's a way for budget ISPs to conserve IP address space within their network. It's not really an issue though, and shouldn't cause you any issues.

--
Views expressed are mine and not necessarily those of my employer.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Sun 02-Jul-17 10:46:58
Print Post

Re: Anyone else seeing RFC1918 addresses in external routes?


[re: locutus] [link to this post]
 
CGNAT

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User locutus
(experienced) Sun 02-Jul-17 14:24:21
Print Post

Re: Anyone else seeing RFC1918 addresses in external routes?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
The router links don't need to be natted though, or publicly addressable, so wouldn't have thought this was anything to do with CGNAT

--
Views expressed are mine and not necessarily those of my employer.
Standard User dragon2611
(experienced) Mon 03-Jul-17 08:37:04
Print Post

Re: Anyone else seeing RFC1918 addresses in external routes?


[re: locutus] [link to this post]
 
Nothing to do with CGNAT, the internal routers only need to be addressable to the hops before and after it so as long as those routers can talk with each other it doesn't matter that it's on private address ranges.

The only routers that really need public addresses are the internet peering routers and the one's acting as a gateway for the public subnets.

Virgin Media + AAISP L2TP tunnel
Standard User prlzx
(experienced) Mon 03-Jul-17 23:19:51
Print Post

Re: Anyone else seeing RFC1918 addresses in external routes?


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
I heard about the CGNAT thing but these addresses from 172.16.0.0/12 are encountered beyond the dedicated public IP (for extra service fee) assigned to the router (hop 1 omitted).

So I was surprised to see Hyperoptic having to resort to private address space, and not public IPs nor from the shared address space as expected.

Was also seeking feedback whether this was considered normal practice or a symptom of newer ISPs struggling to obtain sizeable allocations of route-able IPv4s (other than by trading).



prompt $P - Invalid drive specification - Abort, Retry, Fail? $G
prlzx on iDNET: ADSL2+ / 21CN at ~4Mbps / 700kbps with IP4/6
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Tue 04-Jul-17 08:30:46
Print Post

Re: Anyone else seeing RFC1918 addresses in external routes?


[re: prlzx] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by prlzx:
Was also seeking feedback whether this was considered normal practice or a symptom of newer ISPs struggling to obtain sizeable allocations of route-able IPv4s (other than by trading).


Nah. This ISP has the same heritage as Be* and they ran with RFC 1918 addresses in their internal network too.

In any event the CG-NAT range is 100.64..0.0/10, not RFC 1918 space.

ISPs can use whatever they want in their network though as long as it's not being advertised to the outside world, to the point of using addresses allocated elsewhere if they wish, though that's not so smart, things can go wrong smile
Standard User Binary_Digit
(regular) Tue 04-Jul-17 18:31:35
Print Post

Re: Anyone else seeing RFC1918 addresses in external routes?


[re: prlzx] [link to this post]
 
From a non-CGNAT Hyperoptic connection.

3 172.16.28.44 (172.16.28.44) 2.641 ms 5.008 ms 2.775 ms
4 172.16.28.204 (172.16.28.204) 4.329 ms 5.023 ms 4.376 ms
5 172.16.24.34 (172.16.24.34) 10.423 ms 19.117 ms 10.693 ms
6 172.16.26.160 (172.16.26.160) 10.415 ms 10.190 ms 10.207 ms
7 172.16.17.81 (172.16.17.81) 9.074 ms 9.217 ms 9.066 ms
8 ae2-775.cr1-man1.ip4.gtt.net (77.67.123.169) 14.023 ms 14.105 ms 14.260 ms
9 89.149.137.150 (89.149.137.150) 14.131 ms 14.291 ms 15.550 ms
10 72.14.221.145 (72.14.221.145) 14.897 ms 15.243 ms 15.562 ms
11 108.170.246.129 (108.170.246.129) 14.231 ms
108.170.246.225 (108.170.246.225) 15.702 ms *
12 216.239.57.95 (216.239.57.95) 15.429 ms
72.14.237.179 (72.14.237.179) 14.091 ms
72.14.238.239 (72.14.238.239) 15.088 ms
13 google-public-dns-a.google.com (8.8.8.8) 15.061 ms 14.958 ms 14.963 ms
ISP Representative Hyperoptic_CS
(isp) Tue 18-Jul-17 20:38:18
Print Post

Re: Anyone else seeing RFC1918 addresses in external routes?


[re: Binary_Digit] [link to this post]
 
Hi there,

if you are experiencing any issues with your connection, please send us a PM. We'd love to assist if possible.

Best regards,

Jelena

Customer Support
www.hyperoptic.com

Prefer to talk to the team? Call Customer Support on 0333 332 1111 or by email to support@hyperoptic.com
The above post has been made by an ISP REPRESENTATIVE (although not necessarily the ISP being discussed in the post).
  Print Thread

Jump to