[123252] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP4 Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Thu Mar 4 14:31:22 2010
In-Reply-To: <FA2E47FFA50291418803D2E7C1DF07F30A6A671D@SDEXCL01.Proflowers.com>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:30:30 -0500
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Thomas Magill
<tmagill@providecommerce.com> wrote:
> 1. =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Why don't providers use /31 addresses for P2P links? =
=A0This
> works fine per rfc 3021 but nobody seems to believe it or use it. =A0Are
> there any major manufacturers out there that do not support it?
Because those who want to hyper-optimize use a /32 loopback address on
each router instead and rely on SNMP instead of Ping to determine
whether an interface is up.
> 2. =A0 =A0 =A0 Longer than /24 prefixes in global BGP table. =A0The most =
obvious
> answer is that some hardware may not handle it...
That's the most obvious answer?
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
> handling the v6 table is not currently hard (~2600 prefixes) while long
> term the temptation to do TE is roughly that same in v6 as in v4, the
> prospect of having a bunch of non-aggregatable direct assignments should
> be much lower...
Because we expect far fewer end users to multihome tomorrow than do today?
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
