North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Sprint's route filters and Europe
In message <[email protected]>, "Alex.Bligh" writes: > Michael Dillon wrote: > > Sorry, I should have clarified. It's something I haulled off of an ISP > > discussion list and it appears that some of RIPE's activities may be > > butting heads with Sprint's route filtering policies. Specifically, RIPE > > is charging a fee to ISP's to get large blocks of IP addresses to allocate > > to their customers and yet these blocks are smaller than what Sprint will > > route. > > Specifically RIPE are allocating /19s as their default allocation window > to local-IRs. They don't charge per block but they charge a yearly fee > for being a local-IR. Sprint in its wisdom is filtering those in 195/8 > (great theory, but a bit problematic in practice when it can't agree with > one of the larger registries on what size to filter) with the result > there are now likely to be 50% more adverts (i.e. 2x/19 and an additional > /18 - /19 still necessary to get ANS to work as you can't put a /18 > route object in the database). Since when can't you put a /18 in the database? It sounds like what you are saying is you will be advertising 2 /19s plus advertising a /18 that you won't be registering just to get the traffic to come out of Sprint. You can certainly register a /18 and the whole world would much rather you advertised just the /18 and and not the /19s. This sounds to me like some people don't know or care who the other /19 belongs to and are just announcing the /18 for Sprint's sake. The two /19s would be announced regardless of anything ANS does or regardless of any registry issues. Is this the case? Curtis - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|