Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance

["Alex P. Rudnev" <alex () Relcom EU net>]

On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Dana Hudes wrote:

> Gated allows you to specify the ospf router id. AS others have mentioned
> so does Bay.  Out of curiousity, is anyone running anything other than
I know it well (really we have few gated-based routers there). Let me to 
point my mind - it may be usefull to have short reserved address space in 
the beginning (net 1.0.0.0) and the end (223.255.0.0/16 or simular) 
address space. CISCO's router-id was used as amazing example _why it mey 
be usefull_.

> Cisco, Bay or something with GateD (which includes IBM 6611, Netstat
> Gigarouter and a few others which escape recall at the moment) for
> routing in the Internet (not private nets; I know that Mitsubishi
> Electric Corp of America uses IBM 6611 and some 2210, all with backlevel 
> software).
>
> Dana
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Alex P. Rudnev wrote:
>
> > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:58:30 +0300 (MSK)
> > From: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex () Relcom EU net>
> > To: "Jeffrey C. Ollie" <jeff () ollie clive ia us>
> > Cc: nanog () merit edu
> > Subject: Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance 
> >
> > > > For example. I have a lot of CISCO routers with OSPF protocol. Thnis 
> > > > crazy IOS use highest loopback interface address as router-ID address; I 
> > > > use loopbacks to install load balancing etc. and I can't prevent 
> > > > loopbacks from being equal on the different routers. That's why I hardly 
> > > > need some IP addresses for 'Loopback 98' interface to use it as 
> > > > router-ID; and this have to be higher than any user's addresses. I use 
> > > > 233.255.254.0/24 for this purposes, but it's not reserved address.
> > > >
> > > > This is one, simple, example why it's nessesary to reserve some short 
> > > > address space in the begin and in the end of total addresses.
> > >
> > > No, that's an example of a poorly designed protocol
> > > implementation. One ought to be able to specify an arbitrary router id
> > > for OSPF (heh - even Bay routers can do that :) rather that relying on
> > > such an odd algorithm. I was so surprised by this that I just had to go
> > > look it up:
> > I know _it's example of poorly designet software_. But I'd like to note 
> > it's not only example when it's usefull to have some addresses _greater 
> > than any other_ for private usage.
> >
> > > <http://www.cisco.com/univercd/data/doc/software/11_2/cnp1/5ciprout.htm#REF38888>
> > >
> > > The equivalent Bay reference:
> > >
> > > <http://support.baynetworks.com/Library/tpubs/content/114065A/J_55.HTM#HEADING55-6>
> > Yes, I was more surprised when they (cisco) did not implement something 
> > like _ip ospf router-id A.B.C.D_ into new IOS 11.2. We have 3 or 4 
> > routing troubles due to this IOS property (and it always looked as 
> > _hidden bug_ because it is si,ular to the delayed bomb - it explodes 1 
> > week below some mistake was made in the config files -:)).

Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow
(+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager)
(+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -