North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: The Cidr Report
> > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > Stephen J. Wilcox writes on 11/14/2003 7:16 AM: > > > > > So anyway, was discussing the cidr report at the last > nanog.. I was pointing out > > > that deaggregation is discouraged by the naming and > shaming and then someone > > > else pointed out that this list has scarcely altered in months. > > > > > > So, what can we do as the operator community if this > report isnt having the > > > desired effect? > > > > Stop accepting /24 type routes? Please no... That will drop me off the map.. > > Yeah maybe but what about where the RIRs have assigned > independent /24 space.. > or ISPs have subdelegated the IPs to a multihomed customer, > was more thinking > about where a bunch of routes originating from a single ASN > can be aggregated > rather than routing bloat in general. There are numerous such > examples of people > with eg a /19 announcing 32x /24 etc > > Steve I don't have the stats handy at the moment, but we decided to Multi-home I researched several issues with /24 blocks. One thing that seemed to stick out was that some providers were using /20 and /21 as "multi-home" blocks. They were reserving that block just for /24 multi-homing.. and I also remember that of the /24 being annouced independently, a majority of them were not multihomed....... just how bad is the auto-summarization at the upstream for the route propagation via BGP in the large routers anyway? Jim
|