[27420] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: More route-table bloat vs. ARIN micro-allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (I Am Not An Isp)
Sat Feb 19 03:28:41 2000
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000219000700.035b8e90@mail.ianai.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 00:22:28 -0800
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: I Am Not An Isp <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <20000218235844.A16781@tch.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 11:58 PM 2/18/00 -0800, Steve Rubin wrote:
>
>On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 12:37:32AM -0700, John M. Brown wrote:
>>
>> so I decided to poke around some more...
>>
>> I really can't see how the argument of ""Route / AS-Path" table bloat
>> is going to break things if ARIN starts doing mico-allocations for
>> providers that need to multi-home, but don't need tons of space.
>>
>> I really like the /30's, /32's...
>
>[routes deleted]
>
>I take it you get transit from the network formerly known as iMCI as from
what
>I can tell, it looks like they don't send these routes to peers. I'd be
>willing to bet this is a knob they can turn off for you if you don't want to
>see the routes... Or you can just install some sanity filtering on your
>inbound peers/transit providers to nuke the /25 and up's.
I have to agree with Steve on the prefixes longer than /24. C&W is
probably just leaking internal routes to customers, which you can probably
filter without any loss of connectivity. (There is a nice sanity filter on
the merit.edu site. :)
But John has a point about the /24s in 63.0.0.0/8 (and /20s and ....). You
might as well add the entirety of AS7046 as well. (I told Jeff & Vijay and
others about this over a *year* ago, but UU still announces hundreds of
completely useless routes - which are not even aggregated amongst
themselves.) There are more examples, I am sure everyone knows some.
Essentially, you are right John, the table is full of litter and chaff.
Besides, if all we do is give multi-homed providers "micro allocations",
say in the range of /22s or so, we will not even grow the table - those
routes already exist in the table under the provider's AS. In fact, we
might reduce the table because some of these providers have multiple /24s
which cannot be aggregated.
>Then again, like Patrick, I have no enable, so what do I know? :-)
Ohhh, good point. I do not have enable, so I cannot be correct. :)
>Steve Rubin * ser@tch.org * http://www.tch.org/~ser/
TTFN,
patrick
--
I Am Not An Isp - www.ianai.net
ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com>
"Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle
(Enable? We dunt need no stinkin' enable!!)
