nanog mailing list archives
Re: 169.254.0.0/16
From: Arturo Servin <arturo.servin () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:56:23 -0200
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 :)
Current thread:
- 169.254.0.0/16 Darren O'Connor (Oct 18)
- Re: 169.254.0.0/16 Majdi S. Abbas (Oct 18)
- RE: 169.254.0.0/16 Darren O'Connor (Oct 18)
- Re: 169.254.0.0/16 Christopher Morrow (Oct 18)
- Re: 169.254.0.0/16 Arturo Servin (Oct 19)
- Re: 169.254.0.0/16 joel jaeggli (Oct 19)
- Re: 169.254.0.0/16 Majdi S. Abbas (Oct 18)
- Re: 169.254.0.0/16 joel jaeggli (Oct 20)