[66478] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /24s run amuck
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Golding)
Wed Jan 14 15:23:18 2004
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:22:34 -0500
From: Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com>
To: "Patrick W.Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <F4B62056-45BE-11D8-BCC2-000A9578BB58@ianai.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
This was always a bad practice.
One of the major networks to do this is Gone. Another had rewritten their
policy to say something along the lines of "should advertise X amount of
address space in aggregate or the equivalent". I don't think anyone still
measures by prefixes alone. It was always the sign of cluelessness amongst
those setting peering requirements.
- Daniel Golding
On 1/13/04 6:52 AM, "Patrick W.Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2004, at 6:33 AM, Michael Hallgren wrote:
>
>>> and that a large driver is to
>>> make your network look larger than it is...
>>>
>>
>> What audience??
>
> Unfortunately, I've seen Peering Policies which require things like
> "Must announce a minimum of 5,000 prefixes". :(
