There were some bad problems with that. I wouldn't use it.
It was originally for the PPPoE type setups IIRC to preserve address space. For routed P2P use /31's. On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 01:08:52PM -0700, Kevin Graham wrote: > > > has anyone used /31 network instead of /30? I believe this is recommended to > > use /31 network? Need expert comments. > > Support still seems very limited, but on a similar thread, has anyone toyed > with the 'ip unnumbered for Ethernet' feature? Initially it was just option-82 > magic, but I noticed there's now also a "poll" option to support non-DHCP > hosts: > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst4500/12.2/37sg/configuration/guides/unnumber.html > > There's the single message from a CLI example: > > "Warning: dynamic routing protocols will not work on non-point-to-point > interfaces with IP unnumbered configured." > > ...though without more discussion on the underlying functionality, that's > terribly vague (ie. would explicit neighbor configurations remedy the > limitiation?). > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
