[NANOG] RFC1918 conformance

Dana Hudes dhudes at panix.com
Wed Feb 12 23:21:45 UTC 1997

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
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 


On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Alex P. Rudnev wrote:

> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:58:30 +0300 (MSK)
> From: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex at Relcom.EU.net>
> To: "Jeffrey C. Ollie" <jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us>
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> 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 
> > > 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 -:)).

More information about the NANOG mailing list