dave@feddit.uk to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 2 天前CIA tracing those IPv44 addressesfeddit.ukimagemessage-square37fedilinkarrow-up1278
arrow-up1278imageCIA tracing those IPv44 addressesfeddit.ukdave@feddit.uk to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 2 天前message-square37fedilink
minus-squareAgent641@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up39·1 天前Yeah by using out-of-bounds numbers they avoid accidentally listing legitimate values who might get upset or free advertising
minus-squareMimicJar@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up19·1 天前They could just use IPv6. Legitimately values or not no one is going to understand them, much less get upset by them.
minus-squarepivot_root@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up18·1 天前The attack was coming from ::1 Or if that’s too unbelievable, fe80:: has some scary implications while also not likely to ever be a real device.
minus-squareexu@feditown.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·1 天前You can also use 200::/7. It’s been deprecated since 2004
minus-squareKushan@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·1 天前There are already several reserved IP ranges for this kind of purpose, like 198.51.100.0/24 or 203.0.113.0/24.
Yeah by using out-of-bounds numbers they avoid accidentally listing legitimate values who might get upset or free advertising
They could just use IPv6. Legitimately values or not no one is going to understand them, much less get upset by them.
The attack was coming from ::1
Or if that’s too unbelievable, fe80:: has some scary implications while also not likely to ever be a real device.
You can also use
200::/7. It’s been deprecated since 2004Nice rabbithole, thanks
There are already several reserved IP ranges for this kind of purpose, like 198.51.100.0/24 or 203.0.113.0/24.