mailing list archives
RE: IP4 address conservation method
From: Christopher Papandreou <chrisp () softlayer com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 21:20:44 +0000
(Sorry if you are getting a duplicate copy of this.)
In our network we had a couple of problems with RFC3069. Not all the hardware we currently use supports the RFC so we
tried to come up with a solution that worked and didn't have us opening a lot of ERs (I know I reference 1 ER in the
presentation but that's just 1 rather than a lot). We have more than just routers to consider (i.e. load balancers,
firewalls, etc..) and don't want to lock ourselves in to any particular vendor. We also wanted a solution that we could
easily migrate our customers into rather than completely taking them off line while we "retrofit" them into a new
config (as probably would've been the case if we tried implementing RFC3069). Additionally, for a number of our
customers we needed a solution that worked with a FHRP. I don't currently see a way to do that with RFC3069 but if I've
missed something please let me know.
chrisp () softlayer com
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike () swm pp se]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 5:34 PM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: IP4 address conservation method
I would like to point out RFC 3069. On most cisco equipment this is done using static routes and "ip unnumbered".
So my question is basically: What am I missing? Why can't data center guys not build their network the same way regular
ETTH is done? Either one vlan per customer and sharing the IPv4 subnet between several vlans, or having several
customers in the same vlan but use antispoofing etc (IETF SAVI-wg
functionality) to handle the security stuff?
One vlan per customer also works very well with IPv6.
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
RE: IP4 address conservation method Christopher Papandreou (Jun 05)