[157413] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 169.254.0.0/16
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arturo Servin)
Fri Oct 19 13:56:48 2012
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:56:23 -0200
From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLabr0WjREGQEUO16aKh1u2SkxPD1NRxDevE-hpuyWdE-Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Wait!
Are you suggesting to not use it as intended by RFC6598?
"to
be used as Shared Address Space to accommodate the needs of Carrier-
Grade NAT (CGN) devices. It is anticipated that Service Providers
will use this Shared Address Space to number the interfaces that
connect CGN devices to Customer Premises Equipment (CPE)"
:)
.as
On 18/10/2012 13:25, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Majdi S. Abbas <msa@latt.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> but, but, but!! we have that nifty new '1918' space... 100.64.0.0/10
>
> :)
>
