North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: and we worry about route table bloat with micro-alloc ????
On 18 Feb 2000, John M. Brown said something about: > *> 12.2.19.0/25 166.48.176.25 0 3561 11277 i > *> 12.16.207.0/25 166.48.176.25 0 3561 7217 i This is nothing new. And even if it was: you have an inbound routing policy developed (and enforced via "distribute-list xxx in" or equivalent), right? :) Better yet, perhaps AS3561/AS11277/AS7217 should have an outbound routing policy (that is actually enforced). Perhaps they do, and theirs allows for these size prefixes. But does that mean you have to accept them? -jr ---- Josh Richards [JTR38/JR539-ARIN], Director of Engineering/Network Operations The FIX Network, Inc. - San Luis Obispo, CA - <URL:http://www.fix.net/>
|