nanog mailing list archives
Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers.
From: Roy <r.engehausen () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:01:36 -0700
Doug McIntyre wrote:
Since it isn't PtP, one also has to allow the customer to connect multiple devices.On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:22:27AM -0400, Barton F Bruce wrote:So what is wrong with a /31? We use /30s but if you are short on IP space, look at using /31 rather than /30 links. Cuts your space usage in half./31's are only defined for point-to-point links.Ethernet isn't considered PtP in general.. Many devices won't accept a /31 on anything but a PtP WAN media type link.(or not at all).
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)