My interpretation of that RFC (Thanks hadn't seen that one before) is that it is essentially reserved for Server Providers (Carriers). This would exclude most of the users of this list from using it. Also, it seems that if Customers would adopt this address space, they would be causing themselves significant routing issues if they're carrier implemented it later. This is even called out in the RFC.
I think if anyone used it, they'd be causing themselves problems they don't need. Mike On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Jason Chan <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings, > > > > RFC 6598 describes an allocation of internal 100.64.0.0/10 address block > to be used between CGN and CPE in Server Provider network. The intention > of this is to avoid networks overlapping on CPE devices when both CGN and > CPE are using RFC 1918. > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598 > > > > For those running CGN on wireless, I can see this particularly useful for > your clients who use corporate VPN access. > > > > Is there anyone using 100.64.0.0/10 for their wireless devices? > > > > Any comments would be much appreciated. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jason > > > > -- > > Jason Chan > > Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions, > > Information + Technology Services > > University of Toronto > > Phone: (416)946-5233 > > Email: [email protected] > > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE > Constituent Group discussion list can be found at > http://www.educause.edu/groups/. > > ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
