[133361] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Start accepting longer prefixes as IPv4 depletes?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Bonser)
Wed Dec 8 15:18:41 2010
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 12:18:32 -0800
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=dw_dxeW_wOVw+sxtonXYmaODTy0oW5ZSezE0D@mail.gmail.com>
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
To: "Jeff Wheeler" <jsw@inconcepts.biz>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> How many networks already leak numerous unnecessary /24s to their
> transit providers, who accept them (not having been asked to do
> anything else), and contribute to table bloat? =A0Quite a lot of
> networks do this.
Sure. Even as a prophylactic measure against route hijacking if they =
aren't using the space for internet routed purposes (company uses a =
prefix internally, say for VPNs, addresses in the prefixes aren't =
reachable over the Internet but they announce it anyway to discourage =
the block being used by someone else or to ensure that wayward traffic =
finds a home and can be logged for correcting misconfigured VPNs).
> I would hate to see all those accidental announcements
> suddenly appear in my routing table; or for my transit providers to
> have the bear the expense of dealing with them.
The probability of service-impacting accidents would definitely =
increase.
