nanog mailing list archives
Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers.
From: Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:51:03 +1200
On 30/07/2009, at 7:59 AM, Jim Wininger wrote:
I have a question about the subnet size for BGP peers. Typically when weturn up a new BGP customer we turn them up on a /29 or a /30. That seems tobe the "norm".We connect to many of our BGP peers with ethernet. It would be a simplematter to allocate a /24 for connectivity to the customer on a shared link.This would help save on some address space.My question is, is this in general good or bad idea? Have others been downthis path and found that it was a bad idea? I can see some of the pothols onthis path (BGP session hijacking, incorrectly configured customer routersetc). These issues could be at least partially mitigated. Are there largerissues when doing something like this or is it a practical idea?
What is your access network? Do you have a switch port per customer?If so, look in to private VLANs on Cisco, or whatever similar feature exists for your vendor.
-- Nathan Ward
Current thread:
- Subnet Size for BGP peers. Jim Wininger (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Nathan Ward (Jul 29)
- RE: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Paul Stewart (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Benjamin Billon (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 30)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Barton F Bruce (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Doug McIntyre (Jul 30)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Roy (Jul 30)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Doug McIntyre (Jul 30)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Adrian Minta (Jul 30)