[51856] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP address fee??
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter van Dijk)
Mon Sep 9 07:53:16 2002
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:51:50 +0200
From: Peter van Dijk <peter@dataloss.nl>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20020906215209.P80168-100000@sequoia.muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:04:08PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
[snip]
> About classfulness: I think it's more relevant, even today, than many
> people like to admit. Why is it that I can type "network 192.0.2.0" in my
> Cisco BGP config and the box knows what I'm talking about, but "network
> 192.0.2.0/24" is no good?
That is because Cisco is quite classful-centric, still. I think
defaults for netmasks, based on classes, are very bad. They cause
trouble (like the time a certain ISP announced 62/8 to all it's peers
on AMS-IX). Cisco should support the /n notation!
Greetz, Peter
--
peter@dataloss.nl | http://www.dataloss.nl/ | Undernet:#clue
