|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: More route-table bloat vs. ARIN micro-allocations
At 01:27 AM 2/19/00 -0700, John M. Brown wrote: > >Yes, 3561 is one of our transit. This isn't about what filters we have >or don't have. its about the fact that from my view there are some >announcements >that really shouldn't be on the net in the first place. The point is, those /27s, /30s and /32s are *not* on the 'Net, they are internal to C&W. You should not condemn the global table because C&W leaks specifics to their customers. Those other routes - like 64/8, AS7046, etc. - *are* on the global table and should be cleaned up. But no one seems to care about that any more. I find it amusing that some people who argue against micro-allocations say nothing about this added waste. Hypocrisy always amuses me. (It has to or it would piss me off.) >Some providers (some of our other transits) provide a cleaner table. They probably put the same "sanity" filters on their customers that they put on their peers. I used to do that (when I had enable :). >Personally it seems many BGP folks are lazy and don't keep things clean.... That, my friend, is and has been obvious for many years. :) >I thought patrick got enabled? I know if I keep this up, I will loose it :) Got it, configured a few routers, changed positions, lost it. Now I go around buying other ISPs instead of configuring routers on my own network. Am I automatically wrong because I do not have enable? Many probably think so. Maybe they are right. :) TTFN, patrick -- I Am Not An Isp - www.ianai.net ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com> "Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle (Enable? We dunt need no stinkin' enable!!)
|