|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: routing table size
the large quantity of /24 announcements is, I suspect, from comapnies just large enough to want the benefits of multihoming. You know, 2 t1s on a small router, and stuff like that.. Bri On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > > I've a feeling that the fact that everyone shares at least the view that a /24 > is minimum helps to contain the routing table. (even if there are still > thousands of /24 announcements) > > If a significant number of providers starting accepting any prefix then the > others would need to follow (else they'd get no transit traffic as it will > always prefer the most specific). This really would lead to route explosion! > > I guess the counter argument is that you'd still get the same number of > announcements at longer prefixes as there are only lots of /24s as its the > current shortest (if you catch my drift here). But I doubt it is quite that > straight forward and there would be a growth in announcements.. > > Steve > > On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, David Schwartz wrote: > > > > > > > >I've never suggested accepting /25's thru /32's. I'm wondering if the > > >people saying I should not de-aggregage my /20 actually practice what they > > >preach and filter /24's and don't globally announce /24's from their > > >customers. > > > > > >-Ralph > > > > What's wrong with announcing routes from your customers? Even /32s if you > > want. Only those people who choose to accept them will be affected by them > > and anyone who you have a BGP session with can insist you filter them out. > > Treating different situations as if they were the same is not practicing what > > you preach. > > > > DS > > > > > > > > > > > > >
|