What does it mean when a legitimate business uses a "private" IP address?

What does it mean when a legitimate business uses a "private" IP address?

When I send email from my PCS phone, the information about me listed in the
first Received header (reading from bottom up) is as shown below.

Received: from mymetropcs.com ([10.221.15.173]) by SRVR-DNS1.metropcs.net
with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:20:84 -0600

Googling, I ran an "arin" search, which only says this is a "Private" IP
address. Is a legitimate business allowed to use a private IP address? And,
can other information about me be gleaned from this one PCS header?

From reading the RFC, it seems like a legit business should not be doing
this (http://www.arin.net/reference/rfc/rfc1918.txt).

On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:59:35 -0800, John Navas wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:10:18 -0800, Pat <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote in <hN56l.15718$(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>What does it mean when a legitimate business uses a "private" IP address?
>>
>>When I send email from my PCS phone, the information about me listed in the
>>first Received header (reading from bottom up) is as shown below.
>>
>> Received: from mymetropcs.com ([10.221.15.173]) by SRVR-DNS1.metropcs.net
>>with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:20:84 -0600
>>
>>Googling, I ran an "arin" search, which only says this is a "Private" IP
>>address. Is a legitimate business allowed to use a private IP address? And,
>>can other information about me be gleaned from this one PCS header?
>>
>>From reading the RFC, it seems like a legit business should not be doing
>>this (http://www.arin.net/reference/rfc/rfc1918.txt).
>
> It simply means that you are behind NAT (Network Address Translation),
> best Internet practice for conserving public IP addresses.

http://bluwiki.com/go/WirelessPenisNavas

Here's more help.

On 31 Dec, 02:05, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article
>
> <hN56l.15718$ZP4.15...@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, Pat wrote:
> >What does it mean when a legitimate business uses a "private" IP address?
>
> It means they are not wasting resources.
>
> >Googling, I ran an "arin" search, which only says this is a "Private"
> >IP address. Is a legitimate business allowed to use a private IP
> >address?
>
> RFC1918 addresses may be used by ANYONE. *The only requirement is that
> the "private" address not appear as a source or destination for a
> connection. *These are called 'non-routable' addresses.
>
> >And, can other information about me be gleaned from this one PCS header?
>
> From that one header - not much. What might be in the rest of the
> headers is another story.
>
> >From reading the RFC, it seems like a legit business should not be
> >doing this (http://www.arin.net/reference/rfc/rfc1918.txt).
>
> You're misinterpreting the RFC. Re-read the section 2 "Motivation".
> All RFC1918 is trying to do is to conserve scarce IP addresses. If you
> exclude RFC3330 address space (which includes RFC1918, multicast, and
> other reserved addresses), there are 3,706,453,504 so-called IPv4
> addresses - like 69.110.28.244 which is the address you posted from in
> the Pleasanton area. * As of about two weeks ago, 2,749,037,752 of
> those addresses (74.17 percent) were in use. That might seem like there
> is a lot of "free" addresses still available, but a year earlier the
> numbers were 2,564,407,724 and 69.19 percent, so 5 percent is gone in
> just one year. For perspective - your phone number might be something
> like 925-555-1234 - wanna count those digits and compare?
>
> Your _telephone_ needs a unique phone number if someone is going to
> call you from anywhere in the world. But it can make do with an
> extension number - even one that can't be dialed directly - if all you
> are using it for is calling OUT and not in. *Your PCS phone doesn't
> need a world reachable IP address for the same reason. It's not
> offering services to all other computers out on the Internet, so when
> you connect, you can use an address that is not world unique. *See
> RFC3022 (or the older RFC1631) for details about Network Address
> Translation - which is the method used to share one public IP address
> among many (local) private addresses. If you are using windoze, you
> may be familiar with "Internet Connection Sharing" which is the
> microsoft attempt to implement this service.
>
> * * * * Old guy

As already stated, it is not at all unusual for a business to
relay mail via several internal hops before it hits the
internet. In fact for a *large* business it would probably
be considered normal.

On 2 Jan, 19:14, LR <l...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 02/01/2009 18:22, Kurt Ullman wrote:> In article<IemdnYnac4L1y8PUnZ2dnUVZ8rmdn...@bt.com>,
> > * LR<l...@privacy.net> *wrote:
>
> >>http://www.giganews.com/news/article...ed-growth.html
>
> > * * All this basically says is that giganews' traffic has jumped. Some of
> > this is probably related to dinosaurs such as ourselves from Comcast and
> > similar ISP that dropped Usenet entirely. Much may be related to picking
> > up a couple of outsourced ISPs. Last year, IIRC ELN moved to giganews as
> > their provider of Usenet services. No indication of what is happening to
> > Usenet in general.
>
> I think it is difficult for a general user to see what is happening with
> Usenet as groups come and go and with the expansion of internet access
> in "3rd world countries" there will probably be new local language
> groups which will appear for a while and then cease and then users will
> migrate to another group for while as their interests change.
> <http://groups.google.com/group/J2EE/about>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/immediate-responsegooglegroupscom/about>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/Dubai-propertie/about>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/USA-California_jobs/about>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/tieungaotrang/about>
> If the recession lasts a long time how many of the present web based
> sites will continue to exist and if they do reduce in number perhaps
> people will return to a text based newsgroup.

I am convinced that usenet text newsgroups are declining
and will continue to decline. I think that there are two
main factors.

1.
Ease of creation of 'discussion groups' on numerous
web sites along with the presumed ease of creation
of such sites. There are dozens and dozens of sites.

2.
Unmoderated groups are in the long term
less viable due to "bad actors". I have only
regularly read a few groups (less than 10) and
of those one has been destroyed by a single
individual as a matter of his policy over a period
of a *decade* and another two are presently
wrecked. The damage being caused by
a large volume of ridiculous (usually
rude and insulting) posts. When a newcomer
to such things appears and sees death threats
then it does not take much to persuade them
to go away quitely.

3.
Barrier to entry - news-servers, new-readers...


I looked at a video made by the Computer History
Museum where a gentleman who may have been
the founder of usenet newsgroups said that
the idea had failed due to the influence of Bad
Actors. i.e. people up to no good on the group.

I think this may have been it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZJvg...F83301&index=1

There are significant barriers to entry unless
you use Google Groups however there is a small
but not completely insignificant pressure to
banish google users from usenet by popularising
the idea that they are undesireable. I bumped
into a campaign website of such an organisation
only today.

On Jan 2, 11:32*pm, LR <l...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 02/01/2009 21:29, bod43 wrote:
> > I am convinced that usenet text newsgroups are declining
> > and will continue to decline. I think that there are two
> > main factors.
> > 1.
> > Ease of creation of 'discussion groups' on numerous
> > web sites along with the presumed ease of creation
> > of such sites. There are dozens and dozens of sites.

An argument easily neutralized by stating the fact that it's even
easier to start a new usenet group on google.

> > 2.
> > Unmoderated groups are in the long term
> > less viable due to "bad actors". I have only
> > regularly read a few groups (less than 10) and
> > of those one has been destroyed by a single
> > individual as a matter of his policy over a period
> > of a *decade* and another two are presently
> > wrecked. The damage being caused by
> > a large volume of ridiculous (usually
> > rude and insulting) posts. When a newcomer
> > to such things appears and sees death threats
> > then it does not take much to persuade them
> > to go away quitely.

An argument easily neutralized by stating the fact that more and more
ppl will learn to appriciate lack of psychotic socialdemocratic gay
moderators who itch in their fingers to ban someone, and learn to love
the liberty of free speech and realistic debate where it's okey to
call Govt by it's right name: BANDIT, and all they who are supporting
it for psychopaths.


What I'm afraid of is rather lack of developement to meet demands for
nicer graphical look. Also it lacks alots of symbols. I'm not able to
do a symbolic logical reasoning on usenet. Google is doing some work
about this. We can only hope they finish it.