On 17/09/2014 11:00, Greg Choules <[email protected]> wrote:
My*guess* is that there are insufficient RFC1918 (v4) addresses to go around
both 3G and 4G mobile terminals and since everything that needs to go
externally will be NATed to a public IP anyway it doesn't matter what is used
between your handset and VF's packet core. Anything you choose potentially
looks like you are squatting on someone else's space. At least they picked what
looked like an unannounced (at the time) prefix.
If you want infrastructure IPs which are unroutable but don't clash with
your customers' use of RFC 1918, there's 100.64.0.0/10 from RFC 6598.
