[c-nsp] DS1 provisioning using IP Unnumbered vs /30s

[Justin Shore]

Gert Doering wrote:
> I can only second this.  If you have a dedicated point-to-point interface for 
> things, tacking the route on the interface is usually more robust than
> pointing towards a gateway IP that might not be there, or might be learned
> recursively over another interface, etc.

I'm going to have to think on this.  This could be a good solution for 
us, though again I don't ever foresee the need to re-IP a loopback.  Can 
anyone give me an example of such a scenario?

> For multiaccess-links, *don't* do "ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 eth0", of
> course (use "... eth0 <gateway_ip>").  Just to make this very clear.
> 
>> ip route X.X.X.X 255.255.255.248 Serial10/1/0/3:0 name CustomerRouteA
> 
> One can tack a *name* to routes?  Need to test this :-)
> 
> Does this name get carried in IGPs?  Or is it just there in the config
> to document things?

LOL.  Yes, Gert.  One can name static routes, contrary to what my 
predecessor thought. :-)  It's local to the router.  It's just a nice 
way to describe what the static is for.

Thanks for the info
  Justin