|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: FW: /8s and filtering
Clue! - as you know doubt are now aware, VERIO and Jippi are -two- of the tens of thousands of ISPs that make up the catanet that is the Internet. The published filtering policies of these two providers is a useful tool for others to determine why VERIO and Jippi are contributing to "odd" routing. WRT learning more, you may wish to review the IETF's CIDRd WG archives from 1993-1997. You may also wish to review RFC 2050 and the various RIR policies on the evolution of that work. > > Hello, > Yes, it is all classless now, but I saw Verio's policies and thought > that it is the way ISPs filter. Also, the Jippi group filters at /21 > except in the 192.0/7 space (where it is a /24). I didn't have enough > knowledge to realize that classful was "vestigal". > > Thanks, > Harsha. > > On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 [email protected] wrote: > > > > > but there is no "class C space" anymore. there is no "class A space" > > either. its all CIDR space and some providers have retained some > > vestigal classfull concepts in the creation/maintaince of their routing > > filters. a /24 may or may not get you past my filters. any you'll have > > no way to know until/unless you try to get to my sites or we develop > > a peering relationship. > > > > wrt the evolution of filters. yes, they do evolve. and so does ARIN > > policy. you presume too much to second guess that ARIN policy will > > evolve in the way you outline. > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > Thank you very much everyone for all your replies. When Class C space > > > gets used up, wouldn't the filtering policies have to change to allow the > > > same kind of multihoming from the Class A space. Currently, a /24 from > > > Class C is enough to get past filters. However later, a /22 (or is it /20) > > > from Class A would be required to get past filters. > > > > > > Since there are only three /8s left in Class C, I was curious whether > > > filtering policies would change to accommodate this. > > > > > > If filtering policies won't change ARIN will have to change its > > > multihoming PA policy to giving away a /22 instead of a /24. Though > > > officially it is RIR policy not to worry about the routability of an > > > a prefix I guess they do worry about it? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Harsha. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 [email protected]aroshi.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > Now I am confused because I have got two sets of contradicting answers. > > > > > Some say that anyone can multihome, some say that you need to be of a > > > > > certain minimum size to multihome. May I know what is the right answer? > > > > > > > > > > I agree that allowing anyone to multihome would increase the size of the > > > > > routing table. So does this mean that someone has to be of a certain size > > > > > to multihome? > > > > > > > > > > Harsha. > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone can multihome, with the cooperation of others. > > > > current practice seems to dictate that the standard > > > > operating procedures to protect the integrity of > > > > the routing system mandate that only prefixes of > > > > certain lengths are allowed at -SOME- isp boundaries. > > > > > > > > you seem to have the assumption that there is a single > > > > standard here. There is not. > > > > > > > > --bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
|