[c-nsp] RFC 1918 on loopback?

[Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)]

nachocheeze at gmail.com <> wrote on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:59 PM:

> On Jan 15, 2008 10:20 AM,  <nachocheeze at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>   I've been
>> asked if it's possible to move our loopback addresses to private
>> space, and since currently the only purpose they currently serve is
>> for IGP router-id, it seems reasonable (except on our BGP speaking
>> Internet border routers).
> 
> I hate replying to my own posts, but just to clarify; router transit
> interfaces would remain on public space; only the loopbacks would be
> renumbered.

I see no real benefit of doing so, the routers are still reachable via
their interface addresses, so what does renumbering your loopbacks to
private addresses give you?

Having said this: I don't see any drawbacks, in case you need a public
loopback address (for example for MSDP or something else), you can
always create another loopback interface.

	oli