Interesting -- seems like the side effect would be to basically prevent use by the DoD but not really anyone else. Bonus points if they sell a "government" version for higher cost

I also know of a company who does this. The reason in their case is they act as a network concentrator, bridging hundreds of client IP spaces, so this helps them avoid conflicts with their own space without having to NAT constantly. There is still a lot of NAT for the more common ranges.

Yeah I wanted to do that at previous company. Got talked out of it, but it's nice have all those ips available.

I used to work somewhere that did that. Several of us in Eng pointed out that it was likely impossible to sell anything to DoD personnel since the reply would route internally. But I don't know if it was _fixed_, was still an issue when I left.

I recently troubleshot an installation for someone where at some point in the past they'd picked 1.1.1.0/24 as their address range because "all that 192 stuff was silly and too complicated".

You know, I'm not sure I can explain how I feel about this properly without waving the shotgun around.

This will trip up most SOC workflows in funny ways, and I like it.

IPs having a global distinction between public/private is a convention, but local routing can widely differ.

Same with the "China Cyberattacks" - the guys sitting on top of my outgoing fiber can simulate any IP address they want to me.

there's a couple subnets I (ab)use in the DOD IP space for my home network knowing they'd never put them on the open internet. it's also fun to throw logging for a loop if someone digs.

22.0.0.0/8 - it's basically free real estate!