[1715] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Tue Jan 30 05:45:14 1996
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@unix1.bart.nl>
To: hal9001@panix.com (Robert A. Rosenberg)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 11:39:15 +0100 (MET)
Cc: amb@Xara.NET, Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net, nanog@merit.edu, cidrd@iepg.org,
iab@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu, iana@isi.edu, local-ir@ripe.net
In-Reply-To: <v02140a07ad334309655a@[165.254.158.237]> from "Robert A. Rosenberg" at Jan 30, 96 01:50:19 am
> At 6:09 1/29/96, Alex.Bligh wrote:
> > Currently I have 2 choices as
> >far as I can make out, give them a bit of my /19, break up my
> >nice aggregate and ensure loads of extra announcements (and that
> >probably none of them get routed by anyone applying prefix based
> >filtering), or give them a new /19 all of their own (you've
Suppose you have a customer that needs a /22 and they want to go
multi-homed. Suppose you give them that /22 out of your /19 or /16 you
got from the RIPE NCC. So they announce their /22 to you and to their
other provider. But you keep announcing your /19 or /16. So if anybody
were to filter the /22 announcement, your customer only suffers partial
loss of connectivity, since you are still announcing an aggregate of
their announcemnt (your original /19 or /16).
Problem fixed. Anything else? ;-)
