Re: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4

[Rafael Possamai <rafael () gav ufsc br>]

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...