Re: alternatives to private RFC-1918 addresses on public routers

[Daniel Senie]

William Allen Simpson wrote:
> 
> When I complain, I prefer to suggest alternatives.  In this case, the
> two that come to mind are:
> 
>  1) unnumbered interfaces.  I've used these with PPP for years, but as
>     I remember, there was a problem with Ciscos.  Has this been fixed?

I've used them in several deployments, and they work just fine. You do
need at least one local interface with a real, public address to do
this. When configuring the unnumbered interface, you specify which other
interface (e.g. an Ethernet, or probably even a loopback) to use for IP
address when needed (for ICMP messages and such).

> 
>  2) host routes.  Rather than creating /30 subnets for links (wasting
>     2 addresses for each 2 used on a link), go all the way and use /32
>     for each address.  This make the local routing table a bit bigger,
>     but the entries are rarely used, and aggregated at the boundaries.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Isn't there a link around somewhere on this?
> 
> What about a link for bogon filters to use at boundaries?
> 
> WSimpson@UMich.edu
>     Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie                                        dts@senie.com
Amaranth Networks Inc.            http://www.amaranthnetworks.com