Alexander Clouter <[email protected]> wrote: > > [snipped] > > 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. The > downside is that I run into the following issues: > 1. 169.254.0.0/16 can start to appear in the distributed EIGRP listings > 2. traceroutes have 169.254.0.0/16 addresses in them > 3. 169.254.0.0/16 is pingable by edge hosts as the switch they are > plugged into knows of at least one 169.254.0.0/16 address. > These addresses should never escape the local subnet > I see in the archives the first two points have been lightly touched upon before, with prefix-list filterings and some NAT. Of course I'm interested in other possible solutions or sound advice.
Cheers -- Alexander Clouter .sigmonster says: <Manoj> I *like* the chicken _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
