[12444] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: too many routes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Paul Zimmerman)
Tue Sep 16 19:23:15 1997
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 15:49:31 -0700
From: David Paul Zimmerman <dpz@apple.com>
To: "Sean Donelan" <SEAN@SDG.DRA.COM>, <nanog@merit.edu>
>Some people seem to view CIDR as an opportunity to
>subdivide their traditional 'Class B' networks. I would classify
>most of these announcements as 'mistakes' because they usually also
>announce the supernet, and have the same path.
I could see the intentional announcement of both if you've got diverse --
but ultimately equal -- paths into your B. So site X might advertise
B.0/17 to normally receive the low half of the address range, site Y
might advertise B.128/17 to normally receive the high half, and both
sites would advertise B/16 so that if one site went down in that
scenario, the other's B/16 advertisement would take over for the failed
site's /17. In a normal case, though, you'd see the /16 and /17 with the
same path.
Does this pattern seem to apply to any of the announcements you see?
dp
