Subnet Size for BGP peers.
nanog at daork.net
Wed Jul 29 16:51:03 CDT 2009
On 30/07/2009, at 7:59 AM, Jim Wininger wrote:
> I have a question about the subnet size for BGP peers. Typically
> when we
> turn up a new BGP customer we turn them up on a /29 or a /30. That
> seems to
> be the "norm".
> We connect to many of our BGP peers with ethernet. It would be a
> matter to allocate a /24 for connectivity to the customer on a
> shared link.
> This would help save on some address space.
> My question is, is this in general good or bad idea? Have others
> been down
> this path and found that it was a bad idea? I can see some of the
> pothols on
> this path (BGP session hijacking, incorrectly configured customer
> etc). These issues could be at least partially mitigated. Are there
> issues when doing something like this or is it a practical idea?
What is your access network? Do you have a switch port per customer?
If so, look in to private VLANs on Cisco, or whatever similar feature
exists for your vendor.
More information about the NANOG