[75494] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: The Cidr Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Geoff Huston)
Sat Nov 13 19:36:02 2004
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:35:15 +1100
To: "Roldan, Brad" <broldan@Covad.COM>,
"Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>,
"Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>
From: Geoff Huston <cidr-report@potaroo.net>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>, <eof-list@ripe.net>, <apops@apops.net>,
<routing-wg@ripe.net>, <afnog@afnog.org>, <swinog@swinog.ch>
In-Reply-To: <AF696B16DAC33B46B1911BAD0CCECF7F024E484E@ZANEVS03.cc-ntd1.
covad.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Interestingly enough what Covad appears to be saying is:
If we had a way to announce two things
1 - here are the advertisements for covering aggregates for Covad
AND
2 - do not believe any more specifics for these address blocks, as they are
NOT part of Covad's routing policy for these prefixes
then we would not be seeing this unfortunate case of unauthorized route
leakage being resolved in a way that seems to have unfortunate bgp
implications in terms of more specifics appearing.
So its an interesting question. How could Covad achieve a routing policy
announcement of the form as stated in 2 above?
regards,
Geoff
