[7475] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex P. Rudnev)
Wed Feb 12 06:39:48 1997
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:58:30 +0300 (MSK)
From: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex@Relcom.EU.net>
To: "Jeffrey C. Ollie" <jeff@ollie.clive.ia.us>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199702112023.OAA28113@worf.netins.net>
> >For example. I have a lot of CISCO routers with OSPF protocol. Thnis
> >crazy IOS use highest loopback interface address as router-ID address; I
> >use loopbacks to install load balancing etc. and I can't prevent
> >loopbacks from being equal on the different routers. That's why I hardly
> >need some IP addresses for 'Loopback 98' interface to use it as
> >router-ID; and this have to be higher than any user's addresses. I use
> >233.255.254.0/24 for this purposes, but it's not reserved address.
> >
> >This is one, simple, example why it's nessesary to reserve some short
> >address space in the begin and in the end of total addresses.
>
> No, that's an example of a poorly designed protocol
> implementation. One ought to be able to specify an arbitrary router id
> for OSPF (heh - even Bay routers can do that :) rather that relying on
> such an odd algorithm. I was so surprised by this that I just had to go
> look it up:
I know _it's example of poorly designet software_. But I'd like to note
it's not only example when it's usefull to have some addresses _greater
than any other_ for private usage.
> <http://www.cisco.com/univercd/data/doc/software/11_2/cnp1/5ciprout.htm#REF38888>
>
> The equivalent Bay reference:
>
> <http://support.baynetworks.com/Library/tpubs/content/114065A/J_55.HTM#HEADING55-6>
>
Yes, I was more surprised when they (cisco) did not implement something
like _ip ospf router-id A.B.C.D_ into new IOS 11.2. We have 3 or 4
routing troubles due to this IOS property (and it always looked as
_hidden bug_ because it is si,ular to the delayed bomb - it explodes 1
week below some mistake was made in the config files -:)).
