[82044] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SORBs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andre Oppermann)
Fri Jul 8 15:41:18 2005
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:18:26 +0200
From: Andre Oppermann <nanog-list@nrg4u.com>
To: "Sanfilippo, Ted" <Ted.Sanfilippo@PaeTec.com>
Cc: Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4C4E171C33ADBF43BFFE42978E1708C954E162@mail1-corp.corp.paetec.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Sanfilippo, Ted wrote:
> It belonged to some Canadian ISP, I believe it was a cable company.
>
> Regarding the aggregation/deaggregation mess. This is due to the fact
> that ARIN is rather strict with IP assignements and how we route
> internally.
> Because ARIN wants us to use 80% of our ip blocks, before we can request
> new assignments from them we have to dole out addresses in /22's to each
> city we have, in order to use them up appropriately. Its been a bit of a
> nightmare trying to meet ARIN's policies and also try to meet the
> Internet Communities policies. Believe me, I would much rather advertise
> a /16 prefix out to the Internet, rather then a /22. We have not been
> able to accommodate this unfortunately.
Err... Why do you say you need to advertise a /22 for each city rather
than the /16 for your entire network? What's inside your network and
how you distribute your addresses there is not of concern for anyone
outside of your network. Why don't you advertise the /16 via BGP and
then let the IGP handle the /22 distribution to each city?
--
Andre
