[3034] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: aggregation in 207/8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Kozowski)
Wed May 29 13:42:02 1996
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 10:36:52 -0700
From: Eric Kozowski <kozowski@structured.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
>| Is it just me, or does the level of aggregation within 207/8 really suck?
>
>I don't know what you mean. I only see /18s, /17s and shorter prefixes.
>
>This looks like really good aggregation to me.
>
>OTOH, we're rather liberal in what we pass along from our paying customers,
>but the fix for that is known. access-list 112. Knock yourself out.
Some of us prefer to not break connectivity for our customers.
The sorry state of aggregation doesn't (currently) affect me one way or the
other. It would just be nice to see other network operators clean up their
announcements.
I've always gone by the "be liberal in what you accept and conservative in
what you create" school of thought. Maybe if others would, we wouldn't have
such a problem w/ the route table size.
--
Eric Kozowski Structured Network Systems, Inc.
kozowski@structured.net Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two.
(503)656-3235 FAX "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service"
(800)881-0962 Voice 56k to DS1
