Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

Silver

169.x addresses for /30s?

Reading the docs for AWS Direct Connect, I noticed they assign 169 addresses for the point to point links between customer router and Amazon edge. Does this work in normal environments? What would the drawbacks be? I'd love to have this as an option to reclaim all the 1918 space I'm using for point to points now.
1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Yes this would work. No draw

Yes this would work. No draw backs until a Windows engineers sees it in a traceroute. Read RFC5735. HTH
4 REPLIES

Yes this would work. No draw

Yes this would work. No draw backs until a Windows engineers sees it in a traceroute. Read RFC5735. HTH

windows   uses  169.254.x.x 

windows   uses  169.254.x.x 

AWS apparently uses the 169

AWS apparently uses the 169.254.x.x/16 space as well.

I can't think of a drawback to using this space. You can use any IP space you want in a private network, so long as your end-systems don't need to access services on those commandeered IP spaces. 

I'm curious, are you really hurting for those p2p IP addresses?

Silver

It's not so much the number

It's not so much the number of addresses used (although they do add up in a WAN with hundreds of locations); the real problem is that there's no safe address space in RFC1918 to use for PTPs which won't potentially collide with the private address scheme of the next company we buy.

Problem will be solved with IPv6 and MPBGP, as soon as the carriers get around to upgrading...

110
Views
5
Helpful
4
Replies
CreatePlease to create content