[NTLUG:Discuss] internet routing of private IPs causing problems..

[Richard]

Carl Haddick wrote:
> O
> Maybe try 192.168.3.1/24?
>
>   
Actually, that one WAS taken, but the internal 192.168.3.x subnet is 
designated for use by openvpn connections from server to server,   
192.168.0.0/23 is reserved for all the users who have home routers on 
those subnets (because they are so popular).   192.168.4.x and on are 
reserved in /22 subnets for various sites.

192.168.2.x is reserved for site local host-only routing.   it HAD to be 
that.  I might have used a different ip address that wasn't pingable, 
but the issue here is that I shouldn't HAVE to worry about private IP 
addresses getting in the way on a PUBLIC network connection.

I don't think I would have gotten nearly as upset as I did had not the 
ISP taken the time to listen and understand and correct the issue rather 
than go on about issues that were unrelated to the point where they 
washed their hands and said "It's your responsibility [to fix our effups.]"

I finally reached a higher up who says he'll put me in touch with a high 
level engineer.  We'll see how that goes.   For now though, I've done 
their work so the issue is no longer affecting me.

> When I ran a wireless ISP I used private addresses for the routers
> inside my five city network.  Small cities.  Wide spots in the road,
> arguably, but I did my best to grow.
>
> Pinging those routers from a customer's computer was helpful, so within
> my network I routed the subnets I used.  In 

But I'm sure that if a customer came to you with a problem, you'd A) 
have understanding  and B) resolve his issue for him.

> If your ISP is using private IP addresses where they can, that's not
> necessarily a bad thing.  
agreed..but it IS when it affects ME!  At issue here now is the level of 
incompetence by tech support.
> If they are providing services to some
> customers on private IP addresses, they probably need to route those
> subnets.
>   
to THOSE customers.

>
> It may also be true the ISP is fixated on modern management, which
> literally doesn't care about customers or company longevity if a short
> term stockholder boost is in the way.  
Well, the McLeodUSA contract that was signed was before they were bought 
out by another company.  Maybe the McLeod of old was better and this new 
company hasn't the same priorities.

-- 
Richard