nanog mailing list archives

RE: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

From: Tom Hill <tom () ninjabadger net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 13:44:01 +0100

On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 11:30 +0000, Leigh Porter wrote:

I have not followed this whole thread, but did anybody suggest just
using IPv6 for this?


I was going to mention this, but it's only the neighbor address that is
IPv6. You still need an IPv4 next-hop and that is where the issue is in
using RFC1918 within this scenario.

Tom

Current thread:

Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses James Grace (Jun 15)
- Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses Patrick W. Gilmore (Jun 15)
  - Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses isabel dias (Jun 15)
- Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses Nick Hilliard (Jun 15)
- Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses Cameron Byrne (Jun 15)
- Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses isabel dias (Jun 15)
- Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses Jeff Wheeler (Jun 16)
  - RE: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses Leigh Porter (Jun 16)
    - RE: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses Tom Hill (Jun 16)
    - RE: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses Leigh Porter (Jun 16)
  - Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses Adam Rothschild (Jun 16)
- Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses Gaurab Raj Upadhaya (Jun 16)
- Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses Dobbins, Roland (Jun 21)