nanog mailing list archives
Re: alternatives to private RFC-1918 addresses on public routers
From: Daniel Senie <dts () senie com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:13:15 -0500
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
Current thread:
- private RFC-1918 addresses on public routers William Allen Simpson (Feb 17)
- Re: private RFC-1918 addresses on public routers Dana Hudes (Feb 17)
- Re: private RFC-1918 addresses on public routers Forrest W. Christian (Feb 18)
- Re: private RFC-1918 addresses on public routers Greg A. Woods (Feb 18)
- alternatives to private RFC-1918 addresses on public routers William Allen Simpson (Feb 18)
- Re: alternatives to private RFC-1918 addresses on public routers Daniel Senie (Feb 18)