North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance

  • From: Jeffrey C. Ollie
  • Date: Tue Feb 11 15:44:38 1997


On Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:04:19 +0300 (MSK), [email protected] writes:
>Sorry, but while I was looking to this list, I just reminded interesting 
>issue. Why IANA did not reserved or something simular; by 
>other words, I'd like to have short (256, 512, 1024) private address 
>space in the END of total address space for the normal IP (excluding D 
>class etc).
>For example. I have a lot of CISCO routers with OSPF protocol. Thnis 
>crazy IOS use highest loopback interface address as router-ID address; I 
>use loopbacks to install load balancing etc. and I can't prevent 
>loopbacks from being equal on the different routers. That's why I hardly 
>need some IP addresses for 'Loopback 98' interface to use it as 
>router-ID; and this have to be higher than any user's addresses. I use 
> for this purposes, but it's not reserved address.
>This is one, simple, example why it's nessesary to reserve some short 
>address space in the begin and in the end of total addresses.

No, that's an example of a poorly designed protocol
implementation. One ought to be able to specify an arbitrary router id
for OSPF (heh - even Bay routers can do that :) rather that relying on
such an odd algorithm. I was so surprised by this that I just had to go
look it up:


The equivalent Bay reference:


[A copy of the headers and the PGP signature follow.]
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:23:20 -0600
From: "Jeffrey C. Ollie" <[email protected]>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:04:19 +0300."
             <[email protected]> 
Subject: Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance 
To: [email protected]

Version: 2.6.2
Comment: AnySign 1.4 - A Python tool for PGP signing e-mail and news.

Jeffrey C. Ollie                     |            Should Work Now (TM)
Python Hacker, Mac Lover             |
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -