nanog mailing list archives
Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:54:11 -0400
On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:47 PM, James Grace wrote:
So we're running out of peering space in our /24 and we were considering using private /30's for new peerings. Are there any horrific consequences to picking up this practice?
"Horrific"? How about: "Most peers won't bring up a session." What happens if the peer is using 1918 space internally? -- TTFN, patrick
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 Leigh Porter (Jun 16)
- Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses Adam Rothschild (Jun 16)
- Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses Patrick W. Gilmore (Jun 15)
- Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses Gaurab Raj Upadhaya (Jun 16)