[428] in North American Network Operators' Group
filtering long prefixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Kent)
Thu Sep 21 06:26:30 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 03:21:19 -0700
From: Mark Kent <mark@MainStreet.Net>
To: smd@sprint.net, smd%sprint.net@MERIT.EDU
CC: nanog@MERIT.EDU, markk@internic.net
In-reply-to: Sean Doran's message of Thu, 21 Sep 1995 05:27:36 -0400 <95Sep21.052749-0400_edt.20696+1119@chops.icp.net>
Resent-From: nanog@MERIT.EDU
Sean,
the number of rejected /19 prefixes in the 206 block would tend to
indicate that your policy of filtering out prefixes longer than /18 is
at odds with how these blocks were assigned by the NIC.
Hence, I'ld strongly suggest that you attempt to fix the problem at
the source rather than with direct engineering terrorism. If it is
too late to correct allocation policy for 206, then you had better
focus your attention on future allocations and try to synchronize your
filtering policy to better match the actual mechanisms in use today.
To translate that last sentence: "Please allow 206/19 prefixes."
-mark
