[74745] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: aggregation & table entries
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Wed Oct 13 14:44:20 2004
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:43:45 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Stephen Stuart <stuart@tech.org>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200410131834.i9DIYJnT044432@lo.tech.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > or... why do people insist on injecting routes to non-existent
> > things? a route table entry is a route table entry, regardless
> > of the scope.
>
> Is this where you advocate that providers only announce the parts of
> their assigned blocks that are in use?
seems like a good lead in, so yes - i advocate folks only
announce what they use. may play old-hob on the ISP that
likes to use some other metric for accepting announcements,
(e.g. RIR or other routing registry DB) and will no doubt
increase the tension on justification of proxy announcements,
but overall, this seems to be a good goal.
thanks for letting me rant. :)
--bill
