RE: IP4 address conservation method

[Christopher Papandreou <chrisp () softlayer com>]

Hi Mikael,

(Sorry if you are getting a duplicate copy of this.)

In our network we had a couple of problems with RFC3069. Not all the hardware we currently use supports the RFC so we 
tried to come up with a solution that worked and didn't have us opening a lot of ERs (I know I reference 1 ER in the 
presentation but that's just 1 rather than a lot). We have more than just routers to consider (i.e. load balancers, 
firewalls, etc..) and don't want to lock ourselves in to any particular vendor. We also wanted a solution that we could 
easily migrate our customers into rather than completely taking them off line while we "retrofit" them into a new 
config (as probably would've been the case if we tried implementing RFC3069). Additionally, for a number of our 
customers we needed a solution that worked with a FHRP. I don't currently see a way to do that with RFC3069 but if I've 
missed something please let me know.

Thanks,
ChrisP.
SoftLayer Technologies
chrisp () softlayer com

-----Original Message-----
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike () swm pp se] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 5:34 PM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: IP4 address conservation method


I read:

http://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/tues.general.Papandreou.conservation.24.pdf

I would like to point out RFC 3069. On most cisco equipment this is done using static routes and "ip unnumbered".

So my question is basically: What am I missing? Why can't data center guys not build their network the same way regular 
ETTH is done? Either one vlan per customer and sharing the IPv4 subnet between several vlans, or having several 
customers in the same vlan but use antispoofing etc (IETF SAVI-wg
functionality) to handle the security stuff?

One vlan per customer also works very well with IPv6.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike () swm pp se