[27563] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: and we worry about route table bloat with micro-alloc ????
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Josh Richards)
Thu Feb 24 13:10:00 2000
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:07:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Josh Richards <jrichard@fix.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20000218080450.A14551@abq-mail-01.ihighway.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.96.rhs+jr.1000224100150.16853A-100000@clark.fix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 18 Feb 2000, John M. Brown said something about:
> *> 12.2.19.0/25 166.48.176.25 0 3561 11277 i
> *> 12.16.207.0/25 166.48.176.25 0 3561 7217 i
This is nothing new. And even if it was: you have an inbound routing
policy developed (and enforced via "distribute-list xxx in" or
equivalent), right? :)
Better yet, perhaps AS3561/AS11277/AS7217 should have an outbound routing
policy (that is actually enforced). Perhaps they do, and theirs allows
for these size prefixes. But does that mean you have to accept them?
-jr
----
Josh Richards [JTR38/JR539-ARIN], Director of Engineering/Network Operations
The FIX Network, Inc. - San Luis Obispo, CA - <URL:http://www.fix.net/>
