[32897] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Filtering levels (was RE: multi-homing without the BGP (was
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Travis Pugh)
Sun Dec 17 09:54:25 2000
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 09:51:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Travis Pugh <tpugh@shore.net>
To: nanog@rmrf.net
Cc: Jonathan Disher <jdisher@eng.bamboo.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0012170111010.12826-100000@zeus.its-my.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0012170937550.6152-100000@cider.ecosoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 nanog@rmrf.net wrote:
>
> Depends on what class it's in. Let me explain further. Verio, in their
> infinite wisdom, has decided that they are going to throw CIDR right out
> the window. We own 64.240.0.0-64.242.255.255. We advertise MANY smaller
> blocks of this space obviously, and what we have found is that in that
> space (since it is "Class A" space, remember we don't know what CIDR is
> since we're Verio) is that Verio does not accept anything smaller than a
> /20. Now many of our customers run BGP with us and advertise a /24 only,
> I guess they're SOL as far as Verio is concerned (actually if it's
> our space they're probably going to see the larger aggregate as
> well, so it's not as big of a deal, but still mighty annoying). Oh, and
> did I mention that Verio isn't even one of our peers? Oh well.
>
Maybe if you aggregated your announcements instead of feeding a /14 to us
as /22, /23, and /24 blocks, it wouldn't be necessary to do
minimum-allocation filtering.
-travis
