[190973] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC6598 in AWS?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthieu Michaud)
Mon Aug 8 17:08:21 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGV0rWOt1WiVkNh2+GVMp+Jo2UKTM5Riz135uuVPJRGi4Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthieu Michaud <matthieu@nxdomain.fr>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2016 11:37:41 +0200
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hi,
I fully agree with William and it's used in AWS infrastructure (VPC
Internet GW IIRW).
Best regards,
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 6:04 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> 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/>
>
--
Matthieu MICHAUD
