Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:47 PM, James Grace wrote: > Are there any horrific consequences to picking up this practice? --- Roland Dobbins //

Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

-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 nicel

Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

Also absent from this discussion is that the RIRs are still issuing address space, and interface addressing is perfectly reasonable justification. -a

RE: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

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

RE: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

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

RE: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

From: Jeff Wheeler [j...@inconcepts.biz] >This may sound crazy, and it is certainly not an ideal way of doing >things; but it is an alternative worth consideration as networks >exhaust their available IPv4. I have not followed this whole thread, but did

Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

On Wed, 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? I agree with other posters that this is not a good practice

Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

fc4271 --- On Wed, 6/15/11, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > From: Patrick W. Gilmore > Subject: Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses > To: "NANOG list" > Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 6:54 PM > On Jun 15, 2011, at 12:47 PM, James > Grace wrote: >

Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

m: James Grace > Subject: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses > To: nanog@nanog.org > Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 6:47 PM > Hey All, > > So we're running out of peering space in our /24 and we > were considering using private /30's for new peerings.  >

Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:47 AM, James Grace 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 your peeri

Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

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

Re: Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

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."

Consequences of BGP Peering with Private Addresses

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? Cheers, James