odd DHCP participant on Rogers cable internet
I've just noticed that DHCP responses come from 7.11.164.145. According to whois, that address belongs to the US Department of Defence. I'm pretty sure that that means Rogers has hijacked DoD addresses. What's up with that? NetRange: 7.0.0.0 - 7.255.255.255 CIDR: 7.0.0.0/8 NetName: DISANET7 NetHandle: NET-7-0-0-0-1 Parent: () NetType: Direct Allocation OriginAS: Organization: DoD Network Information Center (DNIC) RegDate: 1997-11-24 Updated: 2006-04-28 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-7-0-0-0-1
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:10:32AM -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
I've just noticed that DHCP responses come from 7.11.164.145. According to whois, that address belongs to the US Department of Defence.
I'm pretty sure that that means Rogers has hijacked DoD addresses. What's up with that?
NetRange: 7.0.0.0 - 7.255.255.255 CIDR: 7.0.0.0/8 NetName: DISANET7 NetHandle: NET-7-0-0-0-1 Parent: () NetType: Direct Allocation OriginAS: Organization: DoD Network Information Center (DNIC) RegDate: 1997-11-24 Updated: 2006-04-28 Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-7-0-0-0-1
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r25679029-Why-is-my-first-hop-to-a-DoD-assig... explains that apparently 7.0.0.0/16 is reserved for internal use only behind the DoD firewalls, and can not be routed publicly, and rogers has decided to use those for internal addresses (probably to avoid conflicts with what customers do behind their own routers). So rogers is apparently working to change 10.* to 7.* for internal equipment. So it looks weird, but it might actually be a good idea on the part of rogers. Surprisingly. -- Len Sorensen
| From: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> | On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:10:32AM -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote: | > I've just noticed that DHCP responses come from 7.11.164.145. | explains that apparently 7.0.0.0/16 is reserved for internal use only | behind the DoD firewalls, 7.11.164.145 is not in 7.0.0.0/16. Is it the case that the /8 is completely unrouted? According to the NTT Lookinglass, the router in Ashburn VA sees no network in its BGP table for 7.11.164.145. So I guess it is safe. <http://www.us.ntt.net/support/looking-glass/>
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:39:12AM -0400, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
7.11.164.145 is not in 7.0.0.0/16.
Hmm, nope that is true. I wonder if someone at rogers is simply changing 10 to 7 without making sure to stay in the valid range.
Is it the case that the /8 is completely unrouted?
According to the NTT Lookinglass, the router in Ashburn VA sees no network in its BGP table for 7.11.164.145. So I guess it is safe.
A bit more searching does seem to say that the entire 7.0.0.0/8 block is not routeable from the normal internet, so rogers apparently was told by IANA they could use them internally as long as they did not allow traffic to or from those addresses outside of rogers. -- Len Sorensen
On 10/23/2015 01:38 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
A bit more searching does seem to say that the entire 7.0.0.0/8 block is not routeable from the normal internet, so rogers apparently was told by IANA they could use them internally as long as they did not allow traffic to or from those addresses outside of rogers.
Where does it say that? While there are such blocks, I don't recall 7.0.0.0/8 being mentioned.
On 10/23/2015 11:39 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
| explains that apparently 7.0.0.0/16 is reserved for internal use only | behind the DoD firewalls,
7.11.164.145 is not in 7.0.0.0/16.
Is it the case that the /8 is completely unrouted?
Back in the days of network classes, this would have been a /8 class A network, not /16. However, with CIDR, /16 is entirely possible.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:32:18PM -0400, James Knott wrote:
On 10/23/2015 11:39 AM, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
| explains that apparently 7.0.0.0/16 is reserved for internal use only | behind the DoD firewalls,
7.11.164.145 is not in 7.0.0.0/16.
Is it the case that the /8 is completely unrouted?
Back in the days of network classes, this would have been a /8 class A network, not /16. However, with CIDR, /16 is entirely possible.
Right. Well a search of route statuses says 7.0.0.0/8 is totally none existant as far as BGP on the internet is concerned. No one is advertising it. -- Len Sorensen
On 10/23/2015 11:25 AM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
explains that apparently 7.0.0.0/16 is reserved for internal use only behind the DoD firewalls, and can not be routed publicly, and rogers has decided to use those for internal addresses (probably to avoid conflicts with what customers do behind their own routers). So rogers is apparently working to change 10.* to 7.* for internal equipment.
So it looks weird, but it might actually be a good idea on the part of rogers. Surprisingly.
And what happens when someone tries to get to the real address that Rogers happens to be using when they shouldn't??? The RFC1918 addresses were designed for this purpose. Of course the real fix is to move to IPv6 ASAP. In the U.S. Comcast has pretty much switched entirely to IPv6. A major reason was there weren't enough RFC1918 addresses to manage their internal network, without segmenting it, which would have created other problems. According to reports I've read, Belgium is the leader in switching to IPv6, with the U.S. and Switzerland vying for 2nd place. Even Brazil and South Africa are well ahead of Canada in switching to IPv6. Canada used to be a world leader in telecom. Why are we so behind the times now? BTW, check the address you're given on your smart phone on Rogers. You'll find it's in the 25.x.y.z range, which is assigned in England. As I mentioned, the problem with using those addresses is that it will cause problems for those on Rogers trying to reach the legitimate owners of those addresses.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:03:58PM -0400, James Knott wrote:
And what happens when someone tries to get to the real address that Rogers happens to be using when they shouldn't??? The RFC1918 addresses were designed for this purpose. Of course the real fix is to move to IPv6 ASAP. In the U.S. Comcast has pretty much switched entirely to IPv6. A major reason was there weren't enough RFC1918 addresses to manage their internal network, without segmenting it, which would have created other problems.
According to reports I've read, Belgium is the leader in switching to IPv6, with the U.S. and Switzerland vying for 2nd place. Even Brazil and South Africa are well ahead of Canada in switching to IPv6. Canada used to be a world leader in telecom. Why are we so behind the times now?
BTW, check the address you're given on your smart phone on Rogers. You'll find it's in the 25.x.y.z range, which is assigned in England. As I mentioned, the problem with using those addresses is that it will cause problems for those on Rogers trying to reach the legitimate owners of those addresses.
24.114.x.x, which is very much a block assigned to rogers. So no, my rogers cell does not get a 25.* address. And rogers did ask iana what to do and was told they could use the 7.* block because they will never be used for machines on the public internet. -- Len Sorensen
On 10/26/2015 10:24 AM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
24.114.x.x, which is very much a block assigned to rogers.
So no, my rogers cell does not get a 25.* address.
I just checked mine and it shows 25.120.190.103, however, the public address I'm using is 24.114.78.250. So, Rogers is using NAT between 25.x.y.z and 24.a.b.c..Incidentally, a few years ago, shortly after I got a Blackberry for a work phone, I compared IP addresses with my own Android phone and they were on completely different networks.
participants (3)
-
D. Hugh Redelmeier -
James Knott -
Lennart Sorensen