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

169.254.0.0/16

Subject: 169.254.0.0/16
From: arturo.servin at gmail.com (Arturo Servin)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:56:23 -0200
In-reply-to: <CAL9jLabr0WjREGQEUO16aKh1u2SkxPD1NRxDevE-hpuyWdE-Hg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAL9jLabr0WjREGQEUO16aKh1u2SkxPD1NRxDevE-hpuyWdE-Hg@mail.gmail.com>

	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)"

:)

.as

On 18/10/2012 13:25, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Majdi S. Abbas <msa at 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
> 
> :)
>

Follow-Ups:
- 169.254.0.0/16
  - From: joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli)

References:
- 169.254.0.0/16
  - From: darrenoc at outlook.com (Darren O'Connor)
- 169.254.0.0/16
  - From: msa at latt.net (Majdi S. Abbas)
- 169.254.0.0/16
  - From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow)

Prev by Date: Google opens Web Window on their Data Centers
Next by Date: Weekly Routing Table Report
Previous by thread: 169.254.0.0/16
Next by thread: 169.254.0.0/16
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread