Hi, On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 01:50:43PM +0100, Alexander Clouter wrote: > The biggest issue is all the rfc1918 usage used in the /30 used to force > the L3 routes out to the edge of the network which make traceroutes > ugly. I really do not want to put aside publicly routable addresses > that are just used to pass EIGRP data around, as that would involve > soaking up over 50 /30's, a bit of a waste. > > So what to use, I am pretty keen to use link-local IPv4 addresses > (169.254.0.0/16) much like I plan to for IPv6 to build up the L3 > point-to-point links and they are perfect for this situation.
Using 169.254.x addresses is no better or worse than RFC1918 addresses.
Just don't go there. If your routers are going to source packets from
those addresses (traceroute responses or - much worse! - ICMP packet too
big messages), use public addresses. That's what they are there for.
On non-ethernet point-to-point links, you could use "ip unnumbered"...
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgp6yxvkTXoHr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
