North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
- From: Alan Hannan
- Date: Sat Aug 03 22:47:04 1996
Could you use loopback interfaces to do what you want?
ps i'm not really a fan of ip unn, I think /30 serial networks
should be considered responsible allocation by most all parties.
pps i'm really a big fan of loopback interfaces for the purposes
of monitoring a router as a node, as opposed to the plurality's
idea of an interface having a cpu
......... Avi Freedman is rumored to have said:
] > The biggest problem with using non-routable ip addresses on numbered interfaces
] > whether point to point or frame or atm or whatever, is that you lose outside
] > connectivity from those interfaces. We tried this, but the essential
] > traceroutes from our core routes are too important when debugging BGP
] > problems to the outside.
] > Robert Bowman
] > Exodus Communications Inc.
] Exactly. Especially when you have downstream customers who only announce
] routes via BGP to you and/or other providers, it can be important for them
] to be able to trace out with a source address that has global connectivity.
] We usually use unnumbered interfaces, though, for singly-connected customers
] (unless their routers can't support unnumbered interfaces). The only
] major gotcha with that is that if they're using a Real Router (that deleted
] routes associated with interfaces that aren't available), you can't
] get to their router if their ethernet is down...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -