Alexander Clouter wrote:
Hi,
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. 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
Using rfc addressing space for links that internet traffic traverse is a
little bit filthy, imo. It makes a mess of traceroute and potentially
sources traffic onto the internet from those addresses (which,
hopefully, is subsequently dropped by filters/urpf).
If you're really worried about an wasting a couple of addresses, switch
all of your links to /31s and bask in the knowledge that you've done
more than most.
We've just migrated all of our linknets from 10/8 space to publicly
addressable space, partly because i believe "it's the right thing to do"
and partly because it irritated customers.
IMO, using RFC space gives you no benefits, other than having saved a
few addresses (it does not give *you* more addresses, it saves teh world
some addresses). It does, however, have a number of drawbacks.
adam.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
