[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

169.254.0.0/16

Subject: 169.254.0.0/16
From: darrenoc at outlook.com (Darren O'Connor)
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

Follow-Ups:
- 169.254.0.0/16
  - From: msa at latt.net (Majdi S. Abbas)
- 169.254.0.0/16
  - From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli)

Prev by Date: Please, talk me down.
Next by Date: DNS hostnames with a duplicate CNAME and A record - which should be removed?
Previous by thread: forward and reverse DNS (was: Please, talk me down.)
Next by thread: 169.254.0.0/16
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread