The MPLS-OPS Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Re: Addressing PE/ CE Links - 2547
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 04:09:25PM +1000, Julian Breen wrote: > All respect John, > > Question was: > "Just wondering what is the general experience and common practice on a > large scale, RFC1918, customer or registered?" Yep. My response to that was: We use registered addresses. Your response was: You use RFC1918 space. I only took exception to your comment: Don't waste global address space on private links. While I understand the reasoning behind that statement, I don't necessarily agree. I feel that if it is imporant enough to number, it should be unique. Likewise, if it isn't important that it be unique, why not run the link un-numbered? Other people feel otherwise. Check NANOG for the holy wars associtated with the idea of using RFC1918 space for internal infrastructure. The pros and cons are hashed out many times over the years. I happen to believe that if you're running infrastructure that others will be using it is incumbent upon you to not have ambiguous numbering. > IMHO I think it's a waste to use 20k registered links *if* you can use > RFC1918 for VPNs. Then again, I think it's better to have a policy than > not to, so if your policy is to use registered, and I can see why you > might... it's better than no policy at all. Now we can both agree -- find a policy, and stick with it. Your customers will be happy in the long run. ------- The MPLS-OPS Mailing List Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
|
|