Re: 169.254.0.0/16

[joel jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

On 10/19/12 10:56 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>         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)"
>         
>
> :)
It's a private scope address range what you actually do with it only 
Germain within your span of control. unless you 're sufficiently unwise 
as to be accepting leaked routes from you upstream in which case it isn't.

http://bgp.he.net/net/100.100.0.0/24#_bogon
> .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
> >
> > :)