North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance
On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Dana Hudes wrote: > Gated allows you to specify the ospf router id. AS others have mentioned > so does Bay. Out of curiousity, is anyone running anything other than I know it well (really we have few gated-based routers there). Let me to point my mind - it may be usefull to have short reserved address space in the beginning (net 1.0.0.0) and the end (223.255.0.0/16 or simular) address space. CISCO's router-id was used as amazing example _why it mey be usefull_. > Cisco, Bay or something with GateD (which includes IBM 6611, Netstat > Gigarouter and a few others which escape recall at the moment) for > routing in the Internet (not private nets; I know that Mitsubishi > Electric Corp of America uses IBM 6611 and some 2210, all with backlevel > software). > > Dana > > > On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Alex P. Rudnev wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:58:30 +0300 (MSK) > > From: "Alex P. Rudnev" <[email protected]> > > To: "Jeffrey C. Ollie" <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: 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 -:)). > > > > Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 239-10-10, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|