On 10/22/19 10:11 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote: > The explicit nature of RFC 6598 is on purpose so that there is no chance > that it will conflict with RFC 1918. This is important because it means > that RFC 6598 can /safely/ be used for Carrier Grade NAT by ISPs without > any fear of conflicting with any potential RFC 1918 IP space that > clients may be using. > > RFC 6598 ∉ RFC 1918 and RFC 1918 ∉ RFC 6598 > RFC 6598 and RFC 1918 are mutually exclusive of each other. > > Yes, you can run RFC 6598 in your home network. But you have nobody to > complain to if (when) your ISP starts using RFC 6598 Shared Address > Space to support Carrier Grade NAT and you end up with an IP conflict. > > Aside from that caveat, sure, use RFC 6598.
So, to the reason for the comment request, you are telling me not to blackhole 100.64/10 in the edge router downstream from an ISP as a general rule, and to accept source addresses from this netblock. Do I understand you correctly? FWIW, I think I've received this recommendation before. The current version of my NetworkManager dispatcher-d-bcp38.sh script has the creation of the blackhole route already disabled; i.e., the netblock is not quarantined.