[142016] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leigh Porter)
Thu Jun 16 09:28:46 2011
From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter@ukbroadband.com>
To: Tom Hill <tom@ninjabadger.net>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:28:24 +0000
In-Reply-To: <1308228246.1996.11.camel@teh-desktop>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
And that will teach me not to read the thread!
--
Leigh
________________________________________
From: Tom Hill [tom@ninjabadger.net]
Sent: 16 June 2011 13:46
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 11:30 +0000, Leigh Porter wrote:
> I have not followed this whole thread, but did anybody suggest just
> using IPv6 for this?
I was going to mention this, but it's only the neighbor address that is
IPv6. You still need an IPv4 next-hop and that is where the issue is in
using RFC1918 within this scenario.
Tom
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email=20
______________________________________________________________________
