[19439] in North American Network Operators' Group
Clean up your annoucements! Re: The Cidr Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John M. Brown)
Sun Sep 13 05:16:42 1998
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 02:06:20 -0700
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: "John M. Brown" <jmbrown@ihighway.net>
In-Reply-To: <35FB85DB.3014@meganet.net>
Yup! (I agree with both of your points! :) )
We should allow /24's into the route system and it wouldn't be as big of
a deal if folks like AS701 and others cleaned up there routes.
Many rural providers are going to be multi-homing and thus we are going
to see an increase of /24 - /20 blocks.
jmbrown@ihighway.net
At 04:44 AM 9/13/98 -0400, you wrote:
>John M. Brown wrote:
>>
>> Why should they, there is no reason for them to. Personally I wonder what
>> would happen if we (the rest of us) started filtering on /19's or /20's :)
>
>Not to rehash, but there are legitimate reasons to advertise /24's. I'd
>say that filtering at that level would be reasonable. What bothers me
>is seeing certain networks advertising an aggregate along with all or
>most subnetworks. Being flexible with one's downstreams is one thing,
>irresponsible adverts are another.
>
>> But then you take UUNET (Alternet) and for example 207.170.32.0 /19
>> is advertised as a /19 AND a stack of /24's all with the same AS path
>> and from what I can tell no special routes, at least not via
nitrous.digex.net
>> But what do I know, I am a lonely little guy... :)
>
>My point exactly :-)
>
>--
>
>Brian Wallingford
>Network Operations Manager
>Meganet Communications, TCIx, Inc.
>
