On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 09:41:09PM -0400, Christian Koch wrote: > a 64bit route distinguisher and the 32bit ip address are used to > create vpnv4 address, which specifically solves the overlap problem
I don't think the overlap is the real issue: > > Although I tend to be more fond of using public IP's because it's a > > unique address space so you don't have to worry about overlapping IP > > addresses on the customer's end and secondly there's no configuration > > from the Service Provider's end should you need to remove the connection > > from the VRF to conduct further testing from the Internet becuse the > > connection is already using public IP's Using non-RFC1918 address means you have a guaranteed unique identifier for the interface. The non-overlap issue is a side effect of having a unique identifier. _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
