nanog mailing list archives
Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space
From: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 10:26:56 -0700
On May 24, 2011, at 8:22 PM, Jeremy wrote:
As long as necessary precautions are taken (route filters, tunnels, VRF's) shouldn't this be technically feasible without any negative ramifications?
Any? Debatable. Doing stuff like this has costs, but I suspect the folks at Rogers aren't idiots and actually did a cost/benefit analysis.
Couldn't you theoretically use anyone's IP space, advertised or not, for this internal transit?
Yes.
I'm not saying it's a good idea, it's certainly more complex which leads to its own issues, but shouldn't it be possible?
Of course. Not even sure it is more complex. Regards, -drc
Current thread:
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space, (continued)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Robert Bonomi (May 25)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space mikea (May 25)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space bmanning (May 25)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Christopher Pilkington (May 25)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Joe Hamelin (May 25)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Owen DeLong (May 25)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Matthew Kaufman (May 25)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Owen DeLong (May 26)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Lyndon Nerenberg (May 25)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Owen DeLong (May 25)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space David Conrad (May 25)