[53402] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: disconnected autonomous systems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard A Steenbergen)
Wed Nov 13 16:08:31 2002
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:07:49 -0500
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
To: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
Cc: Daniel Golding <dgold@FDFNet.Net>,
"nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0211131547310.13114-100000@ns.istop.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:49:53PM -0500, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> > Just making sure Ralph knows this, since I'm sure achieving 99% peering
> > by getting 10GE into NYIIX is the goal for his OC192 over 2600 network. :)
>
> Trying to run OC192 over a 2600 router would make more business sense than
> giving away 250mbps of free transit, which you claim to have done (on
> isp-bandwidth) lately. ;-)
Please note the difference between "giving away" and "this guy doesn't
pay".
> I've never seen anyone here complain that Yipes de-aggregates
> 66.7.128.0/18 into /24's like 66.7.129.0/24. Until the bigger providers
> change their ways why should someone like me (who has only chopped a /20
> into /21-/23 with a covering /20) decide that doing a single aggregate
> /20 announcement is going to make a difference?
First of all I've never seen anyone point to Yipes as an example of how to
do anything correctly or successfully.
Secondly, if you REALLY need to do it, you can probably get away with it.
But if you have any kind of decency and a common transit provider,
announce the aggregate and the more specifics with no-export. It's not
required, but it's what nice/smart people do.
Just because someone else litters doesn't mean you should too.
--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
