Use public addresses on the links and use outbound distribute-lists to stop the propagation of point-to-point links. Traceroute will continue to work, unless you use uRPF.
David -- http://dcp.dcptech.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:cisco-nsp- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Alexander Clouter > Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 11:19 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ipv4 link-local for eigrp > > 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/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
