[c-nsp] ipv4 link-local for eigrp

[Alexander Clouter]

Gert Doering <gert at greenie.muc.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 01:50:43PM +0100, Alexander Clouter wrote:
>> The biggest issue is all the rfc1918 usage used in the /30 used to force 
>> the L3 routes out to the edge of the network which make traceroutes 
>> ugly.  I really do not want to put aside publicly routable addresses 
>> that are just used to pass EIGRP data around, as that would involve 
>> soaking up over 50 /30's, a bit of a waste.
>> 
>> So what to use, I am pretty keen to use link-local IPv4 addresses 
>> (169.254.0.0/16) much like I plan to for IPv6 to build up the L3 
>> point-to-point links and they are perfect for this situation.  
> 
> Using 169.254.x addresses is no better or worse than RFC1918 addresses.
>
Well yes, I agree but...
 
> Just don't go there.  If your routers are going to source packets from
> those addresses (traceroute responses or - much worse! - ICMP packet too
> big messages), use public addresses.  That's what they are there for.
> 
I just don't want to burn public routable addresses on point-to-point 
links needlessly when there is a perfectly good routable address on 
Loopback0.  These link are there just to steer traffic down and 
distribute routing tables, the kit should not be responding with these 
addresses for anything...I don't want them to.

I was hoping someone knew of some cunningness and/or magic trick I could 
call upon?

> On non-ethernet point-to-point links, you could use "ip unnumbered"...
> 
Alas, it's all Ethernet here.

Cheers

-- 
Alexander Clouter
.sigmonster says: To err is human, but I can REALLY foul things up.