On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:47 PM, James Grace wrote:
Are there any horrific consequences to picking up this practice?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kirkham-private-ip-sp-cores-04
---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net //
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:47 PM, James Grace ja...@cs.fiu.edu 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?
I agree with other posters that this is not a
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 11:30 +, Leigh Porter wrote:
I have not followed this whole thread, but did anybody suggest just
using IPv6 for this?
I was going to mention this, but it's only the neighbor address that is
IPv6. You still need an IPv4 next-hop and that is where the issue is in
using
And that will teach me not to read the thread!
--
Leigh
From: Tom Hill [t...@ninjabadger.net]
Sent: 16 June 2011 13:46
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 11:30 +, Leigh Porter
Also absent from this discussion is that the RIRs are still issuing
address space, and interface addressing is perfectly reasonable
justification.
-a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/15/11 5:47 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?
This might summarize it nicely.
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
On 15/06/2011 17:47, 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?
yes. it causes nasty problems if you use urpf (as you should), in
particular
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:47 AM, James Grace ja...@cs.fiu.edu wrote:
Hey All,
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?
You can reclaim space by switching
IPv4? IPv6?
are you planning to do NAT or PAT?
Are you using a bogous ASN 64512 through 65534 to be used for private purposes?
/30 - 4 addresses/2 hosts - you can't do a mesh configuration w/ that subnet
mask..
--- On Wed, 6/15/11, James Grace ja...@cs.fiu.edu wrote:
From: James
, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
From: Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@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
11 matches
Mail list logo
