[157390] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 169.254.0.0/16
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Majdi S. Abbas)
Thu Oct 18 11:19:46 2012
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:18:56 -0400
From: "Majdi S. Abbas" <msa@latt.net>
To: "Darren O'Connor" <darrenoc@outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DUB002-W583621160A1929804206CEDE770@phx.gbl>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 06:59:09PM +0100, Darren O'Connor wrote:
> I've just set up a vpn tunnel to Amazon's AWS and as part of the config
> they required me to configure to /30 tunnels using addressing from the
> 169.254.0.0/16 space.
Yeah, they do that for Direct Connect.
> RFC3927 basically says that this address should only be used as a temp
> measure until the interface has a proper private or public address.
So? :)
> So what's the consensus then? Is their a problem using this space as
> link-local address for routers here and there (I mean we have 65K
> addresses wasted in this block) or is it a strict no-no? And if no, why
> is Amazon using it?
RFCs are just paper. As for why they use it.. the common private
use reserved blocks (10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16) are all in use
internally in their customers networks. This is probably the easiest
way to avoid addressing conflicts.
Since these networks are all isolated, I don't see a great deal
of harm in it (probably less than overlapping more commonly used private
blocks.)
--msa
