[121628] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using /31 for router links
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Varriale)
Sat Jan 23 12:25:51 2010
From: "Tony Varriale" <tvarriale@comcast.net>
To: "nanOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:24:49 -0600
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
That's a vendor specific issue. Maybe you could take it up with them and
ask what year they think this is?
tv
----- Original Message -----
From: "Florian Weimer" <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
To: "Seth Mattinen" <sethm@rollernet.us>
Cc: "nanOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: Using /31 for router links
>* 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.
>
