North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Clean up your annoucements! Re: The Cidr Report
Yup! (I agree with both of your points! :) ) We should allow /24's into the route system and it wouldn't be as big of a deal if folks like AS701 and others cleaned up there routes. Many rural providers are going to be multi-homing and thus we are going to see an increase of /24 - /20 blocks. [email protected] At 04:44 AM 9/13/98 -0400, you wrote: >John M. Brown wrote: >> >> Why should they, there is no reason for them to. Personally I wonder what >> would happen if we (the rest of us) started filtering on /19's or /20's :) > >Not to rehash, but there are legitimate reasons to advertise /24's. I'd >say that filtering at that level would be reasonable. What bothers me >is seeing certain networks advertising an aggregate along with all or >most subnetworks. Being flexible with one's downstreams is one thing, >irresponsible adverts are another. > >> But then you take UUNET (Alternet) and for example 207.170.32.0 /19 >> is advertised as a /19 AND a stack of /24's all with the same AS path >> and from what I can tell no special routes, at least not via nitrous.digex.net >> But what do I know, I am a lonely little guy... :) > >My point exactly :-) > >-- > >Brian Wallingford >Network Operations Manager >Meganet Communications, TCIx, Inc. >
|