+1 on the CCR2216 routers, rock-solid stuff...
Regards,
Christopher Hawker
From: NANOG on behalf of Tony
Wicks
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 5:08 AM
To: 'Tom Samplonius'
Cc: 'NANOG'
Subject: RE: Small Internet border router options?
Juniper MX204, Nokia SR1/SR1
[10] 192.0.0.0/24 reserved for IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry
[RFC5736]. Complete registration details for 192.0.0.0/24 are found in
[IANA registry iana-ipv4-special-registry].
Was RFC5736 obsoleted? I think not, so I would treat it as bogon.
Its a nice tiny subnet for special purpose
Used/Refurbished Cisco ASR 900 or 1000 family, perhaps ?
Rubens
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 3:53 PM Tom Samplonius wrote:
>
>
> What are using for small campus border routers? So four to eight 10G ports
> with a FIB for full scale L3?
>
>
> Tom
>
>
No, I am not confusing those two. Actually, Im using 192.0.2.0 as well
here, for server's internal SNAT.
Okey, I checked that registry and there is nothing I care about.
It seems the choice to using 192.0.0.0/24 internally at desktop
was smart enough ;)
Thx for info.
-- Original message
RFC 5736 was obsoleted by RFC 6890.
It says in part:
2.2.1. Information Requirements
The IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries maintain the
following information regarding each entry:
…
o Forwardable - A boolean value indicating whether a router may
forward an IP datag
>
> That means that some IP addresses in the block 192.0.0.0/24 may be
> routable.
>
> So, I would not make this a bogon.
>
This ignores note 2 on the IANA definitions page, next to 192.0.0.0/24 :
> [2]
>
> Not useable unless by virtue of a more specific reservation.
>
> Which then lists the mor
From what I looked at IANA Special Registry, this whole range looks
like some service IPs. I mean, they provide specific service within AS.
From me then, it looks like bogon. You should not receive routing for those
addresses from other AS. (PNI is out of scope here).
-- Original message
On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 1:24 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
> That means that some IP addresses in the block 192.0.0.0/24 may be
>> routable.
>>
>
It feels like people are talking past each other when they are saying
"routable" — these are fairly clearly not routable on the Global Internet,
but addresse
*Announcing NANOG 91 Keynote! *
*Juniper Networks' Kireeti Kompella Will Present "Network Digital Twin"*
*SVP and Chief Engineer for the AWAN BU in Juniper Networks, Kompella, will
discuss "digital twins" and how they are used in many contexts.*
As networks ramp up on automation, this is a logica
Not an IPv6 newbie by any stretch, but we still aren't doing it "at scale" and
some of you are, so...
For a very small & dense (on 128-bit scales, anyway) network, is RFC3531 still
the last word in IPv6 allocation strategies?
Right now, we're just approaching it as "pick the next /64 in the ran
I never could understand the motivation behind RFC3531. Just assign /64s. A
single /64 subnet has 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 host addresses. It is
enough. Period.
-mel
On May 14, 2024, at 12:54 PM, Adam Thompson wrote:
Not an IPv6 newbie by any stretch, but we still aren’t doing it “at
I may have mis-read it (I admit I didn’t read it all that carefully) but I
think RFC3531 is talking about the strategy for assigning /64s out of a larger
pool (a /56, say).
-Adam
Adam Thompson
Consultant, Infrastructure Services
MERLIN
100 - 135 Innovation Drive
Winnipeg, MB R3T 6A8
(204) 977-68
+1 on the Ubiquiti Infinity.. I've used a number of them in various roles..
Linux based and have had 1 hardware failure after a couple years. Try to
keep bridging to a minimum as it'll eat the processor, but for routed
traffic, no issues.
/rh
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 11:56 AM Tom Samplonius wrot
13 matches
Mail list logo
