[50433] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Any people still with old filters?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kurt Erik Lindqvist)
Mon Jul 29 14:25:07 2002
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:23:25 +0200
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Reply-To: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
To: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207291244480.5217-100000@cpu1693.adsl.bellglobal.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>> ...and the clue-less on the Internet is (still) less than 80%. It's more
>> like 20%. See http://mcvax.org/~jhma/routing for one example of how much
>> we could gain if we actually aggregated...
>
> This was hinted at in the peering debate, but wouldn't it help the cause
> of aggregation if networks stopped requiring a large number of prefixes in
> order to establish peering?
Interesting point. But peering is a commercial relationship. Basing it on
number of prefixes is IMO a wierd view, but yes that is done. It CAN be a
meassurement, but hopefully people using it as an argument is clever enough
to actually look at the routes - not just the numbers of them.
I seriously doubt that this is the real reason for the routes though.
Best regards,
- kurtis -
