[190969] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC6598 in AWS?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Fri Aug 5 12:08:39 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Really-To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJfrh6Lptd5NoYBUfse8fRQ-Qe-g-faBA1Voxafcirwi0LtQqw@mail.gmail.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 12:04:04 -0400
To: Arlington Albertson <arlingtonalbertson@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Arlington Albertson
<arlingtonalbertson@gmail.com> wrote:
> We've filed a support ticket to find out the supported level for this
> range, but I wanted to see if there was anyone out there who'd experienced
> using the 100.64.0.0/10 space in AWS?
Hi,
The Carrier NAT space? The only difference between that and RFC1918
space is that when you have an address conflict with a third party
using 100.64.0.0/10 it is 100% entirely your fault for
misappropriating it.
Generally speaking, 100.64.0.0/10 should not be assigned to servers,
only client machines. Assigning it to servers creates a probability of
conflict that the space was meant to solve.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
