Doug McIntyre wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:22:27AM -0400, Barton F Bruce wrote:
So what is wrong with a /31? We use /30s but if you are short on IP space,
look at using /31 rather than /30 links. Cuts your space usage in half.
/31's are only defined for point-to-point links.
Et
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:22:27AM -0400, Barton F Bruce wrote:
> So what is wrong with a /31? We use /30s but if you are short on IP space,
> look at using /31 rather than /30 links. Cuts your space usage in half.
/31's are only defined for point-to-point links.
Ethernet isn't considered PtP i
Shared link for BGP connectivity is a bad idea. Imagine that one of your
customer leave proxy-arp on his interface, or imagine that he makes a
Layer2 loop. Then all other customers will be affected. Usually a
customer with BGP is on another level, so a gain of some IP's doesn't
worth the troub
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I don't remember if you have to do local-proxy-arp or not, but if you're
running bgp you could always do next-hop-self to be sure it hops via the
gateway.
I did remember that this is identical to the behaviour described in
RFC3069.
--
Mikael A
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Benjamin Billon wrote:
Who knows any other good way to lose IP addresses?
I know how to not lose them:
int lo30
ip address 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.0
int gi2.10
encap dot1q 10
desc cust 1
ip address unnumbered lo30
int gi2.11
encap dot1q 11
desc cust 2
ip address unnumbe
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Wininger"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:59 PM
Subject: Subnet Size for BGP peers.
I have a question about the subnet size for BGP peers. Typically when we
turn up a new BGP customer we turn them up on a /29 or a /30. That seems
t
ways: on 10.0.0.0/29, you got
10.0.0.0 : network
10.0.0.7 : broadcast
10.0.0.1 : gw1
10.0.0.2 : gw2
10.0.0.6 : virtual gw
only 3, 4 and 5 for other equipments.
Who knows any other good way to lose IP addresses?
Jim Wininger a écrit :
I have a question about the subnet size for BGP peers. Typicall
/29's here for everyone great for troubleshooting and any future
additions typically required...;)
-Original Message-
From: Jim Wininger [mailto:jbot...@gmail.com]
Sent: July 29, 2009 4:00 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Subnet Size for BGP peers.
I have a question about the s
On 30/07/2009, at 7:59 AM, Jim Wininger wrote:
I have a question about the subnet size for BGP peers. Typically
when we
turn up a new BGP customer we turn them up on a /29 or a /30. That
seems to
be the "norm".
We connect to many of our BGP peers with ethernet. It would be
I have a question about the subnet size for BGP peers. Typically when we
turn up a new BGP customer we turn them up on a /29 or a /30. That seems to
be the "norm".
We connect to many of our BGP peers with ethernet. It would be a simple
matter to allocate a /24 for connectivity to th
10 matches
Mail list logo
