I think your book needs to be update.....
-
Hello,
I am reading your book with this link: https://docs.netgate.com/manuals/pfsense/en/latest/the-pfsense-book.pdf
And it have this contents:
CONCEPTS
4.1 Understanding Public and Private IP Addresses
4.1.1 Private IP AddressesA complete list of special-use IPv4 networks may be found in RFC 3330. There are private IPv4 addresses, such as 1.0.0.0/8 and 2.0.0.0/8, that have since been allocated to the dwindling IPv4 pool. Use of these addresses areproblematic and not recommended
This is history and not up to date. For example....
route: 1.1.1.0/24
origin: AS13335
descr: APNIC Research and Development
6 Cordelia St
mnt-by: MAINT-AU-APNIC-GM85-AProute: 2.0.0.0/16
descr: France Telecom Orange
origin: AS3215I hope you can review this contents and modify them so that they will not bring confusion to others...
Thanks!
Daniel
-
So vs saying private, you are suggesting it should say special use/reserved ranges?
Yes those ranges have been allocated to public space now, which is what its stating.
"that have since been allocated to the dwindling IPv4 pool."
The point being, don't use reserved or special space that might not currently be used in the public as private.. Since it could be switched to normal public space. Those are 2 examples of what was before not public, which are now.. So just because a range might not currently be allocated for public use - don't use it privately.
The use of private there confused you?
5.0.0.0/8 also use to be reserved, which has now also been allocated to public space.
But yeah they should prob update that section since pretty sure all of it has been allocated as of now.. Other then the private and doc and some others.. All the reserved space has been allocated? Would have to double check that - the point being it was bad practice, and still is to use public space that is not yours just because you don't think you will need to get there. For example have seen it quite often people use the dod space internally.. Never need to go there ;) So we will just use it as our local space..
-
Well the fact is that 1.0.0.0/8 and 2.0.0.0/8 ARE NOT PRIVATE IP ADDRESS anymore.
I dont mind you change that to whatever you want to say it as special use or reserve use or whatever but just they are not private address. They were.
-
They were never actually private, they were reserved/not allocated.. so not public, if not public you could use the term private ;)
Sorry that wording confused you... But its pretty clear the point being made there.
That they are NOT private any more is the whole point of that section.. Ie the
"that have since been allocated to the dwindling IPv4 pool."
-
@danielckw said in I think your book needs to be update.....:
I hope you can review this contents and modify them so that they will not bring confusion to others...
The part with "...have been allocated" in my book says exactly that - they aren't private anymore. They are actively in use (say "Hi!" to Cloudflare for 1.1.1.1/1.0.0.1). Don't see the big deal for that, I'm sure somewhere in the book there are sections that are outdated, too. That's the case with any book, most are old when they come out new. The fact that this one is generated on demand doesn't change that. So yeah, one should rewrite that.
Did you see the button to report modifications/changes for the book/documentation?
https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/book/
On the top right, the little bug. Takes you to their Redmine and creates a ticket so they can keep track of the changes that should be made.Greets
Jens -
While there are many places in the book and other docs due for updates, what is stated there is accurate. They were reserved before, they have since been allocated. In other words, if someone used them, it's time to stop, or there will be problems as noted later in that paragraph.
-
I think he has a problem with them being called "private" ;) They were never part of rfc1918, they were reserved, and not actually allocated..
-
This is history and not up to date.
ARE NOT PRIVATE IP ADDRESS anymore
they are not private address. They were.
All refer to the current text being out of date, not the specific terminology. But the current text is OK, they just misread it.
-
Dude I hear you... And I don't get it either.. What is written is correct, but I think he doesn't like that the term private was used vs say unallocated and now allocated.. Because 1/8 was never in the private space - it was reserved and not allocated..
Thats my take on it.. I think its fine as written.. His confusion over something that is quite clear, is what is confusing to me ;)
I think he should suggest the "wording/update" that he thinks would be less confusing ;)
