This is new too me! never heard before. do we can use 100.64.0.0/16 on Point to point WAN link??
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Brian Turnbow <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Satich, > > In your position I would consider using shared address space instead of > private address space. > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598 > > Best Regards > > Brian > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: cisco-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Satish Patel >> Sent: martedě 21 giugno 2016 04:53 >> To: Cisco Network Service Providers >> Subject: [c-nsp] Private IP in point to point link on internet >> >> This is weird question but i thought let me get opinion from you guys. >> We have following scenario >> >> [ISP]------<Public-IP>-----[Router]-------<Private-IP>-------[L3 >> Switch]------------[Hosts] >> >> >> In above diagram we get /24 subnet from ISP for hosts, Now i want to >> configure routed network between [Router] and [L3 switch] so can i use >> Private IP address (rfc1981) like 192.168.100.1/30 instead of Public IP >> address, to save public IP address in point to point link. what would be > the >> disadvantage i will get doing that? >> _______________________________________________ >> cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
