[65198] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: The Cidr Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (McBurnett, Jim)
Fri Nov 14 14:42:15 2003
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 14:41:40 -0500
From: "McBurnett, Jim" <jmcburnett@msmgmt.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>=20
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>=20
> > Stephen J. Wilcox writes on 11/14/2003 7:16 AM:
> >=20
> > > So anyway, was discussing the cidr report at the last=20
> nanog.. I was pointing out=20
> > > that deaggregation is discouraged by the naming and=20
> shaming and then someone=20
> > > else pointed out that this list has scarcely altered in months.
> > >=20
> > > So, what can we do as the operator community if this=20
> report isnt having the=20
> > > desired effect?=20
> >=20
> > Stop accepting /24 type routes?
Please no... That will drop me off the map..
>=20
> Yeah maybe but what about where the RIRs have assigned=20
> independent /24 space.. =20
> or ISPs have subdelegated the IPs to a multihomed customer,=20
> was more thinking
> about where a bunch of routes originating from a single ASN=20
> can be aggregated=20
> rather than routing bloat in general. There are numerous such=20
> examples of people=20
> with eg a /19 announcing 32x /24 etc
>=20
> Steve
I don't have the stats handy at the moment, but we decided to Multi-home
I researched several issues with /24 blocks. One thing that seemed to =
stick
out was that some providers were using /20 and /21 as "multi-home" =
blocks.
They were reserving that block just for /24 multi-homing.. and I also =
remember
that of the /24 being annouced independently, a majority of them were =
not
multihomed.......
just how bad is the auto-summarization at the upstream for the route =
propagation
via BGP in the large routers anyway?
Jim
