Using CGNAT doesn't sound right either, although I haven't read the whole thing, but it seems reasonable to use that block for CGNAT only.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918 On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Tony Wicks <t...@wicks.co.nz> wrote: > Use 100.64.0.0/10, this is the CGNAT reserved range.I would most > definitely not recommend 240.0.0.0 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luan Nguyen > Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2015 9:07 a.m. > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4 > > Is that safe to use internally? Anyone using it? > Just for NATTING on Cisco gears... > >
