1 Mar
2015
1 Mar
'15
5:47 p.m.
Hey just wanted to mention that it does appear as though 100.0.0.0/12 does
get routed by a number of internet hosts:
traceroute -n 100.1.1.1
1 192.168.2.1 16.953 ms 18.672 ms 26.622 ms
2 192.168.1.1 63.993 ms 66.595 ms 67.210 ms
3 50.185.26.1 81.620 ms 84.669 ms 87.114 ms
4 68.87.196.89 91.254 ms 91.479 ms 92.388 ms
5 68.87.57.221 87.381 ms 68.87.55.229 104.986 ms 68.87.55.225 106.784
ms
6 68.85.155.234 109.069 ms 68.85.155.238 91.181 ms 68.85.155.234
102.066 ms
7 * * *
8 68.86.86.102 106.262 ms 106.159 ms 106.481 ms
9 68.86.82.94 100.819 ms 104.484 ms 101.623 ms
10 23.30.206.94 139.012 ms 138.273 ms 158.165 ms
11 130.81.209.171 193.143 ms * *
12 * * *
13 100.1.1.1 159.241 ms 155.888 ms 156.733 ms
or
traceroute 100.1.1.1
traceroute to 100.1.1.1 (100.1.1.1), 30 hops max, 60
byte packets
1 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) 41.102 ms 41.890 ms 44.911 ms
2 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 50.067 ms 50.663 ms 51.156 ms
3 50.185.26.1 (50.185.26.1) 60.095 ms 61.839 ms 87.606 ms
4 GE-2-37-ur01.fremontcev2.ca.sfba.comcast.net (68.87.196.89) 103.734
ms 104.030 ms 177.000 ms
5 te-0-7-0-21-sur03.oakland.ca.sfba.comcast.net (68.87.57.221) 176.024
ms te-0-7-0-19-sur03.oakland.ca.sfba.comcast.net (68.85.57.141) 176.480
ms te-0-7-0-21-sur03.oakland.ca.sfba.comcast.net (68.87.57.221) 176.684
ms
6 te-0-2-0-5-ar01.sfsutro.ca.sfba.comcast.net (69.139.199.78) 178.344
ms te-0-2-0-0-ar01.sfsutro.ca.sfba.comcast.net (68.85.155.234) 19.639 ms
te-0-2-0-7-ar01.sfsutro.ca.sfba.comcast.net (68.87.194.50) 41.532 ms
7 * * *
8 he-2-9-0-0-cr01.losangeles.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.102)
59.336 ms 98.858 ms 98.859 ms
9 be-13-pe02.11greatoaks.ca.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.82.94) 98.056 ms
102.286 ms 99.433 ms
10 23.30.206.94 (23.30.206.94) 273.404 ms 274.855 ms 276.308 ms
11 B200.NWRKNJ-LCR-22.verizon-gni.net (130.81.209.171) 301.458 ms
P0-15-0-0.NWRKNJ-LCR-22.verizon-gni.net (130.81.199.17) 301.773 ms
302.699 ms
12 * * *
13 L101.NWRKNJ-VFTTP-142.verizon-gni.net (100.1.1.1) 378.294 ms
379.111 ms 378.479 ms
I think we agreed that this is okay as it's supposed to be strictly for
internal NAT only, and so any public routing is sort of incidental. Just
wanted folks to be apprised of the situation.