[89132] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andy Davidson)
Fri Mar 3 05:02:55 2006
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:02:21 +0000
From: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org>
To: Mark Newton <newton@internode.com.au>
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20060302152048.GB38700@internode.com.au>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: andy@nosignal.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Mark Newton wrote:
> I mean, who accepts prefixes longer than /24 these days anyway?
> We've all decided that we "can live without" any network smaller
> than 254 hosts and it hasn't made a lick of difference to
> universal reachability.
> What's to stop someone who wants to carry around less prefixes from
> saying, "Bugg'rit, I'm not going to accept anything smaller than
> a /18"?
Hopefully, customers.
Furthermore, such a policy will also do little to encourage IPv4
conservation. We're already in a situation where for each routing
policy, folk are recommended to use /20 or smaller prefixes (per routing
policy) when applying for PI, despite the fact that a /23 might suit
their multi-homed, end-site network, in order to help beat-the-filters.
-a
