[181158] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rafael Possamai)
Wed Jun 17 18:24:27 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <001701d0a942$70e780a0$52b681e0$@wicks.co.nz>
From: Rafael Possamai <rafael@gav.ufsc.br>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:24:02 -0500
To: Tony Wicks <tony@wicks.co.nz>
Cc: luan.nguyen@dimensiondata.com, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Using CGNAT doesn't sound right either, although I haven't read the whole
thing, but it seems reasonable to use that block for CGNAT only.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Tony Wicks <tony@wicks.co.nz> wrote:
> Use 100.64.0.0/10, this is the CGNAT reserved range.I would most
> definitely not recommend 240.0.0.0
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luan Nguyen
> Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2015 9:07 a.m.
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4
>
> Is that safe to use internally? Anyone using it?
> Just for NATTING on Cisco gears...
>
>
