nanog mailing list archives
Re: Best Practices for Loopback addressing (Core routers & VPN CPE)
From: Guy Tal <guy () gblx net>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:10:11 -0500 (EST)
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Daniel Golding wrote:
Consider the situation where you have a peer or customer who needs to do ebgp multihop peering from loopback to loopback. This happens infrequently, but it does happen. You need public IP address space to (reasonably) make this work. I know you are assuming this won't happen, but the day you need to provision two OC-12s to the same provider or peer, and want to load balance them effectively...
Well, as you mentioned, it's fairly infrequent that these situations arise, but it's not unheard of. However, in this case, you can always take an IP address out of the interface pool and create another loopback address specifically for the purpose of load balancing to the peer/customer. I'm actually not advocating using 1918 address space in the backbone, just trying to point out a solution to a problem. :) Guy
Current thread:
- Best Practices for Loopback addressing (Core routers & VPN CPE) m . rapoport (Jun 06)
- Re: Best Practices for Loopback addressing (Core routers & VPN CPE) Haesu (Jun 06)
- Re: Best Practices for Loopback addressing (Core routers & VPN CPE) Danny McPherson (Jun 06)
- Re: Best Practices for Loopback addressing (Core routers & VPN CPE) Daniel Golding (Jun 06)
- Re: Best Practices for Loopback addressing (Core routers & VPN CPE) Guy Tal (Jun 06)
- Re: Best Practices for Loopback addressing (Core routers & VPN CPE) Christopher B. Zydel (Jun 06)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Best Practices for Loopback addressing (Core routers & VPN CPE) Marc Binderberger (Jun 08)