Talk:Reserved IP addresses

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

ORCHID[edit]

IANA lists 2001:10::/28 (ORCHID) as depreciated as of March 2014. Does that mean this block is now unreserved/unallocated again? Should the article be changed to reflect this? http://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml 108.46.57.116 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The original ORCHID assignment is no longer in place and is now listed in the registry as deprecated to make it clear that it should not be used. I will update the article. Tubbydammer (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Locality[edit]

198.18.0.0/15 Is only for use when testing. This is my understanding from RFC2544, so why is this not mentioned in the table. Table lists only as "Private Network" and some entities seems to be using on production networks. Is this production use valid? --207.194.223.3 (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Locality columns seems to be borderline WP:OR, and sometimes slightly misleading.

RFC 5737 says "These blocks are not for local use" about the TEST-NETs.
I can not find a reference for 240.0.0.0/4 being global, more like not yet defined.
While RFC 5156 says ::ffff:0:0/96 "should not appear on the public Internet", I can not find anything that says it is local only.

I suggest that the columns are reduced to allowed on the public internet.

--Cybjit (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake in IPv4 reserved address space[edit]

I didn't mention this in the edit I made so I thought I would make it here.

The list for the "Number of Addresses" In the IPv4 address block table was wrong for the 224.0.0.0/4 and 240.0.0.0/4 address spaces. The table stated that there were 268,435,455 addresses. 2³² is indeed 265,435,455 but you have to add in the extra "0" address making the correct number of addresses 268,435,456.

You will notice this in all the other listed address spaces.

Thank you.

IPv4 and IPv6 reserved addresses tables[edit]

The IPv4 table from this page is moved to IPv4#Special addresses, and improved upon. Then, the table is transcluded from IPv4 back to this page.

The IPv6 table from this page is moved to IPv6 address#Special addresses, and improved upon. Then, the table is transcluded from IPv6 address back to this page. The address block 2001:10::/28 is moved to the historical notes, as this block is returned to IANA.

On Talk:IPv4 and Talk:IPv6 address it is mentioned that the table originated from this page. —— _D^an_d^orⁱ_D (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool idea! I haven't seen this kind of data reuse before, but I like it. One issue I noticed though, when trying to add a reference to rfc3986 for documentation prefixes in ipv6: if the reference is defined outside the table, it will be left undefined here. Moving reference definitions to within the table solves this. Thanks! 83.254.129.3 (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

198.18.0.0/15 Assigned[edit]

Despite the RFC, it looks like 198.18.0.0/16 was assigned to Oracle while 198.19.0.0/16 went to Avago.

https://rdap.arin.net/registry/ip/192.18.0.0

https://rdap.arin.net/registry/ip/192.19.0.0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.200.68 (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]