Thanks All, That was my understanding and research as well. Further, I have heard back directly from AWS and they have stated that while "yes" technically you can use it, you are prone to dns routing issues at the very least and should not expect everything to "just work" as it would with RFC1918.
Appreciate the feedback. Case closed. On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 2:37 AM Matthieu Michaud <matth...@nxdomain.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > I fully agree with William and it's used in AWS infrastructure (VPC > Internet GW IIRW). > > Best regards, > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 6:04 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Arlington Albertson >> <arlingtonalbert...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > We've filed a support ticket to find out the supported level for this >> > range, but I wanted to see if there was anyone out there who'd >> experienced >> > using the 100.64.0.0/10 space in AWS? >> >> Hi, >> >> The Carrier NAT space? The only difference between that and RFC1918 >> space is that when you have an address conflict with a third party >> using 100.64.0.0/10 it is 100% entirely your fault for >> misappropriating it. >> >> Generally speaking, 100.64.0.0/10 should not be assigned to servers, >> only client machines. Assigning it to servers creates a probability of >> conflict that the space was meant to solve. >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> >> >> -- >> William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us >> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> >> > > > > -- > Matthieu MICHAUD >
