27 Sep
2014
27 Sep
'14
2:09 a.m.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Ken Seefried <seefriek at gmail.com> wrote:
From: Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org>
Presumably what was meant was 127.0.0.x, part of the 127.0.0.0/8 block
reserved by RFC 6890 and its predecessors for loopback. While one
could certainly argue that it's a non-compliant usage, many systems
have used various addresses in that block for things that are
deliberately intended to be unroutable.
The RFC 1918 ranges are intended for local use and are supposed to be
publicly unroutable, but are often locally routable. 127/8 shouldn't
even be locally routable, though stranger things have happened.
You would obviously only talk to one device at a
time. PC would be at
128.0.0.16 on a
private un-routable interface (which is why
it's 128.0.0.x).
128.0.0.0/24 isn't unroutable. It's allocated to a
company called "Jump
Management SRL" out of Romania (and it's in the BGP tables). Unroutables
are 10/8, 172.16/12 & 192.168/16 (per RFC1918).