[27413] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: alternatives to private RFC-1918 addresses on public routers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Senie)
Fri Feb 18 13:19:15 2000
Message-ID: <38AD8BBB.99C80C45@senie.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:13:15 -0500
From: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
William Allen Simpson wrote:
>
> When I complain, I prefer to suggest alternatives. In this case, the
> two that come to mind are:
>
> 1) unnumbered interfaces. I've used these with PPP for years, but as
> I remember, there was a problem with Ciscos. Has this been fixed?
I've used them in several deployments, and they work just fine. You do
need at least one local interface with a real, public address to do
this. When configuring the unnumbered interface, you specify which other
interface (e.g. an Ethernet, or probably even a loopback) to use for IP
address when needed (for ICMP messages and such).
>
> 2) host routes. Rather than creating /30 subnets for links (wasting
> 2 addresses for each 2 used on a link), go all the way and use /32
> for each address. This make the local routing table a bit bigger,
> but the entries are rarely used, and aggregated at the boundaries.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Isn't there a link around somewhere on this?
>
> What about a link for bogon filters to use at boundaries?
>
> WSimpson@UMich.edu
> Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie dts@senie.com
Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranthnetworks.com
