|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> To: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:06:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4B5A3DFC.4090305@rollernet.us> (Seth Mattinen's message of "Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:08:28 -0800") Cc: nanOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org * Seth Mattinen: > In the past I've always used /30's for PTP connection subnets out of > old habit (i.e. Ethernet that won't take unnumbered) but now I'm > considering switching to /31's in order to stretch my IPv4 space > further. Has anyone else does this? Good? Bad? Bad. For some systems, such tricks work to some degree only due to lack of input validation, and you get failures down the road (ARP ceases to work, packet filters are not applied properly and other fun). And now is not the time to conserve address space. You really should do everything you can to justify additional allocations from your RIR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |