[116302] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Subnet Size for BGP peers.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Stewart)
Wed Jul 29 18:03:24 2009
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:02:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: <15a18b860907291259n304fe598x763b650a6f0dc44a@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Paul Stewart" <pstewart@nexicomgroup.net>
To: "Jim Wininger" <jbotctc@gmail.com>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
/29's here for everyone.... great for troubleshooting and any future
additions typically required...;)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Wininger [mailto:jbotctc@gmail.com]
Sent: July 29, 2009 4:00 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Subnet Size for BGP peers.
I have a question about the subnet size for BGP peers. Typically when we
turn up a new BGP customer we turn them up on a /29 or a /30. That seems
to
be the "norm".
We connect to many of our BGP peers with ethernet. It would be a simple
matter to allocate a /24 for connectivity to the customer on a shared
link.
This would help save on some address space.
My question is, is this in general good or bad idea? Have others been
down
this path and found that it was a bad idea? I can see some of the
pothols on
this path (BGP session hijacking, incorrectly configured customer
routers
etc). These issues could be at least partially mitigated. Are there
larger
issues when doing something like this or is it a practical idea?
--
Jim Wininger
--
Jim Wininger
jbotctc@gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to=
which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material=
. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and =
then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying,=
distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
