nanog mailing list archives
alternatives to private RFC-1918 addresses on public routers
From: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson () greendragon com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 07:43:51 -0500
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? 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
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)