Hacker News Reader

Assigning a 1.1.1.1 to a local modem interface? Cox: that ain't noth'n here hold my beer" and watch a 10.x traceroute go seven hops out the door and resolve somewhere on their network.

View on HN

There is a big difference: 10.x.x.x is for private use. Cox is using it privately for device management. You can also use it privately and there will be no conflict (assuming you are not attempting to manage those same devices, which is probably a safe assumption 99.99% of the time.)

To be fair, there is a network range specifically allocated for carrier grade nat (100.64/10), sounds like that might have been better to use here.

Except, they're not using it for NAT. They're using it for device management (mostly CPE, if I recall.)

Those IP addresses are just being assigned to their own networking equipment. Cox using the CGNAT network for that would be just as wrong as you using it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Cox using private address space internally. If anything, there's something wrong with routing requests to private address space out your WAN in the first place.

What Cox is doing is completely appropriate and what AT&T and Cisco are doing is squatting on someone else's IP assignments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com