nanog mailing list archives
169.254.0.0/16
From: Darren O'Connor <darrenoc () outlook com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:59:09 +0100
I've just set up a vpn tunnel to Amazon's AWS and as part of the config they required me to configure to /30 tunnels using addressing from the 169.254.0.0/16 space. RFC3927 basically says that this address should only be used as a temp measure until the interface has a proper private or public address. So what's the consensus then? Is their a problem using this space as link-local address for routers here and there (I mean we have 65K addresses wasted in this block) or is it a strict no-no? And if no, why is Amazon using it? Thanks Darren
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)