[431] in North American Network Operators' Group
filtering long prefixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Kent)
Thu Sep 21 10:46:53 1995
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 07:42:36 -0700
From: Mark Kent <mark@MainStreet.Net>
To: smd%icp.net@MERIT.EDU
CC: smd%sprint.net@MERIT.EDU, markk@internic.net, nanog@MERIT.EDU,
cidrd@IEPG.ORG
In-reply-to: Sean Doran's message of Thu, 21 Sep 1995 06:50:03 -0400 <95Sep21.065011-0400_edt.20696+1127@chops.icp.net>
Resent-From: nanog@MERIT.EDU
>> I also note that the Internic also had wording which pointed out the
>> dangers of accepting this sort of prefix from them, right on its
>> application form, which I reproduce below.
Are you certain that the form you cut that sentence from existed
before any 206 nets were handed out? Are you certain that everyone
who applied for, and got a block like 206/19, used that form?
>> In part this is because it gives me the opportunity to study who
>> has gotten disconnected and how difficult it will be to reconnect
>> them
The Internet is no longer an experiment. You can more easily see who
will be affected if they are on-line. Or are you waiting for the
cards and letters to come pouring in?
>> "Maybe. Let's see how bad the mess is first."
By initially routing long prefixes in 206 you are the ones who have
created the mess. So, you made a mistake. Move on higher up the
chain and try again. Cutting off companies retroactively is not the
answer. You need to put filters in that cut no one off today,
but protect against growth tomorrow.
-mark
