[99229] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Tue Sep 11 05:24:25 2007
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:15:00 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
Cc: Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org>, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>,
North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <008c01c7f3c0$bf57a110$5a3816ac@atlanta.polycom.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 10:16:17AM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> Thus spake "Jon Lewis" <jlewis@lewis.org>
> >The trouble is, it turns out there are a number of networks where
> >CIDR isn't spoken. They get their IP space from their RIR, break
> >it up into /24s, and announce those /24s (the ones they're using
> >anyway) into BGP as /24s with no covering CIDR.
>
> IMHO, such networks are broken and they should be filtered. If people
> doing this found themselves unable to reach the significant fraction of the
> Net (or certain key sites), they would add the covering route even if they
> were hoping people would accept their incompetent/TE /24s.
well, your assumptio n about how prefixes are used might be
tempered with the thought that some /24s are used for
interconnecting ISP's at exchanges...
and for that matter it seems a lazy ISP to pass the buck
on "routability" to an org that runs no transit infrastructure.
RIR's (Well ARIN anyway) has NEVER assured routability of
a delegated prefix. Tracking /filters based on RIR delegation
policy seems like a leap to me...
--bill
>
> Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
