[3651] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: totd
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Hannan)
Sat Aug 3 22:49:22 1996
From: Alan Hannan <alan@gi.net>
To: freedman@netaxs.com (Avi Freedman)
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 21:42:35 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199608021532.LAA14299@netaxs.com> from "Avi Freedman" at Aug 2, 96 11:32:39 am
Avi,
Could you use loopback interfaces to do what you want?
-alan
ps i'm not really a fan of ip unn, I think /30 serial networks
should be considered responsible allocation by most all parties.
pps i'm really a big fan of loopback interfaces for the purposes
of monitoring a router as a node, as opposed to the plurality's
idea of an interface having a cpu
......... Avi Freedman is rumored to have said:
]
] > The biggest problem with using non-routable ip addresses on numbered interfaces
] > whether point to point or frame or atm or whatever, is that you lose outside
] > connectivity from those interfaces. We tried this, but the essential
] > traceroutes from our core routes are too important when debugging BGP
] > problems to the outside.
] >
] > Robert Bowman
] > Exodus Communications Inc.
]
] Exactly. Especially when you have downstream customers who only announce
] routes via BGP to you and/or other providers, it can be important for them
] to be able to trace out with a source address that has global connectivity.
]
] We usually use unnumbered interfaces, though, for singly-connected customers
] (unless their routers can't support unnumbered interfaces). The only
] major gotcha with that is that if they're using a Real Router (that deleted
] routes associated with interfaces that aren't available), you can't
] get to their router if their ethernet is down...
]
] Avi
]
]
]
