Testing, one-one-one-one. Yep, you're ready for net news nuggets

Cloudflare generated some buzz of the wrong kind when it turned out the company's much-hyped privacy-focussed DNS resolver at 1.1.1.1 caused hassles for some users. The problems had a variety of causes, Cloudflare wrote, all of them down to clashes with the address: some routers are configured with 1.1.1.1 as an internal IP …

[Mayday]

1.1.1.1

"Some networks with Cisco gateways also use 1.1.1.1, but it's not certain whether that's a default or a sysadmin's decision."

Both. It is default for a wireless capture portal/virtual IP but a piece of piss to change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: 1.1.1.1

Nice to see Cisco understanding how networking works and the concept of private / public ranges.

[Wolfclaw]

Have given it try and seems reliable and quicker than Virgin Muppets DNS servers.

[Anonymous Coward]

1.0.0.1 may have problems too

Back in the 90s I was at a place that had 255 as the second octet in their class B address. The Solaris installer refused to accept that as a legal address, though it was possible to edit the config files after install and manually set it. There were a few other problems others ran into as well.

Maybe that's all been cleaned up by now since we've been forced to use every nook and cranny of IP space. But I'll bet just like 1.1.1.1 was special cased, 1.0.x.x may be problematic in a few fringe cases as well.