North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance
> >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 > >233.255.254.0/24 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: I know _it's example of poorly designet software_. But I'd like to note it's not only example when it's usefull to have some addresses _greater than any other_ for private usage. > <http://www.cisco.com/univercd/data/doc/software/11_2/cnp1/5ciprout.htm#REF38888> > > The equivalent Bay reference: > > <http://support.baynetworks.com/Library/tpubs/content/114065A/J_55.HTM#HEADING55-6> > Yes, I was more surprised when they (cisco) did not implement something like _ip ospf router-id A.B.C.D_ into new IOS 11.2. We have 3 or 4 routing troubles due to this IOS property (and it always looked as _hidden bug_ because it is si,ular to the delayed bomb - it explodes 1 week below some mistake was made in the config files -:)). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|