Is there anyone before Google that went after getting one of these marketing IPs?
First time I saw it was 8.8.8.8.
I personally had one had in my head from the 80s 128.252.120.1. bit it is obviously not a special one.
AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
361–370 of 382 posts
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#362This isn't malice. AT&T has an internal IP they assigned to 1.1.1.1 because it was unused and they used it as an image caching proxy so it browsing the internet would feel faster on early phones. I've seen it when I was reverse engineering on Android a while back.
If not malice, it is incredibly bad engineering. Every IP address on a foreign, public network has to be considered as "in use".
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having it seem like a bug would be an effective way to block it intentionally. The timing of such an unusual regression is suspicious. The fact that 1.0.0.1 is also blocked is also suspicious.
A conspiratorial Hanlon's corollary: The most effective malice is that which can be ascribed to incompetence.
Genuinely brilliant.
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really hope that's the case, was 1.1.1.1 allocated before CF acquired it? Was 1.0.0.1 also blocked?
1.1.1.0/24 was reserved by APNIC for research use. Lots of cisco example config use 1.1.1.1 for router internal identifier / DHCP server / OSPF dummy network . Not suprised if it break anything.
Makes sense. Thanks!
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#3651.1.1.1 blocked in India too on BSNL connections.
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really hope that's the case, was 1.1.1.1 allocated before CF acquired it? Was 1.0.0.1 also blocked?
1.1.1.0/24 was reserved by APNIC for research use. Lots of cisco example config use 1.1.1.1 for router internal identifier / DHCP server / OSPF dummy network . Not suprised if it break anything.
I didn’t know this and it sure seems to corroborate what others suggested about it being intentional, but for completely different reasons.
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it's not just malice but doubly so: they used an IP they didn't have the rights to and they're now blocking proper users of it.
AT&T regularly assigns my phone an IP in 10/8, instead of using 100.64/16 as they should [1]. IIRC, they used to even have the gall to use 172.16/12, which is crazy when you consider the amount of corporate networks using those addresses. This caused issues where my phone would try to get on wifi, but the DHCPACK would be sent along on the existing interface rather than the one coming up. So the wifi icon was continu…
A carrier deploying NAT might not be using CGNAT, and hence, in compliance with the spec, decide not to use the 100.64/16 space.
One requirement of CGNAT, for instance, requires that the carrier's router be able to handle "address crashes". [1]
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it's not just malice but doubly so: they used an IP they didn't have the rights to and they're now blocking proper users of it.
Let's not act like using a "probably not in-use IPv4 but we can't really be sure" is a crime against humanity. If you're designing any kind of large scale system over the internet you end up hitting the problem sooner or later (like how some VPN solutions started using 5.x.y.z to be sure not to clash with LAN IPs for instance). The real solution of course would be to switch to IPv6 where any vendor can claim some pri…
Would you feel the same way if AT&T started blasting static on "unused" frequencies they don't have the right to?
Do that and the FCC will come down on you like a tonne of bricks, and I feel that is absolutely justified.
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
AT&T regularly assigns my phone an IP in 10/8, instead of using 100.64/16 as they should [1]. IIRC, they used to even have the gall to use 172.16/12, which is crazy when you consider the amount of corporate networks using those addresses. This caused issues where my phone would try to get on wifi, but the DHCPACK would be sent along on the existing interface rather than the one coming up. So the wifi icon was continu…
A carrier deploying NAT might not be using CGNAT, and hence, in compliance with the spec, decide not to use the 100.64/16 space. One requirement of CGNAT, for instance, requires that the carrier's router be able to handle "address crashes". [1] [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598#section-4
I think it says that you can use it even if you're not doing CGNAT, provided that you are a service provider.
> In particular, Shared Address Space can only be used in Service Provider networks OR on routing equipment that is able to do address translation across router interfaces when the addresses are identical on two different interfaces.
(edit: no, very clearly, "Devices MUST be capable of performing address translation when identical Shared Address Space ranges are used on two different interfaces." )
Also, is it wrong to assume that cellular networks are able to handle "address crashes" due to the inherent centralization that comes as a result of having clients maintain the same IP (and same connections) as the device hops from tower to tower? Maybe I don't understand the topics at play here...
Re: AT&T updates firmware to block access to 1.1.1.1
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then the odds appear to not be in our favor. CF CEO tweets that 1.0.0.1 is also blocked. https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/991718955021623296 Others have confirmed that the ipv6 address belonging to CF appears to be blocked.
Just curious - can cloudflare blackhole all of Att traffic?
A more interesting use case though it would have its dangers is them showing a message to AT&T users that their ISP is doing things to damage the internet and that they should call and complain. People got mad at the idea of CloudFlare slowing down network requests by FCC members in protest of their shenanigans.