nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC6598 in AWS?
From: William Herrin <bill () herrin us>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 12:04:04 -0400
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/>
Current thread:
- RFC6598 in AWS? Arlington Albertson (Aug 04)
- Re: RFC6598 in AWS? William Herrin (Aug 05)
- Re: RFC6598 in AWS? Matthieu Michaud (Aug 08)
- Re: RFC6598 in AWS? Arlington Albertson (Aug 09)
- Re: RFC6598 in AWS? Matthieu Michaud (Aug 08)
- Re: RFC6598 in AWS? William Herrin (Aug 05)