Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

[isabel dias <isabeldias1 () yahoo com>]

i guess you have a lot of ibgp sessions ..........:-)


bgp finite state model
http://www.inetdaemon.com/tutorials/internet/ip/routing/bgp/operation/finite_state_model.shtml



http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:C5Rq3DV63akJ:citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.71.3908%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf+BGP+finite+machine&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiwviFqLXrhPybI3RwpVftr_qlgTSZbIzw2b6rlIEAKE8pqIN-D_2BpJIDacMx18AVSBpZtVAYLoPiUcsLbzDOVAcH9whrXJqB8zFm6R7ImuKNoC8dkYD_OHliYNrldoLGde9Hc&sig=AHIEtbQa0Typ1WE3rB9ztWZaYFIA8t-mag


http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4271




--- On Wed, 6/15/11, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick () ianai net> wrote:

> From: Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick () ianai net>
> Subject: Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses
> To: "NANOG list" <nanog () nanog org>
> Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 6:54 PM
> 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