North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: The Cidr Report
Hi Philip, On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Philip Smith wrote: > Quite often many service providers are de-aggregating without knowing it. They > receive their /20 or whatever from the RIR, but they consider this to be 16 > Class Cs - I'm not joking - and announce them as such to the Internet. I spend > a lot of time getting these folks to announce aggregates, but it is hard work > convincing people that this will even work. Even if the RIR recommends that > they announce their address block, they still consider it as Class Cs - even > Class Bs for some big allocations. :( this is getting into what i was implying earlier.. you have wider experience than me - would you agree that most of the poor deaggregating is not intentional ie that they're announcing their '16 class Cs' or historically had 2 /21s and dont even realise they could fix it.. that applies to medium and large providers too reading this list - how often do they actually check what prefixes they are sourcing, from my recent work at a couple of european IXes i had a number of folks email me offlist as they hadnt realised til I sent out an email they had deaggregation and once it was pointed out they just fixed it. so to repeat my earlier suggestion - if transit providers, particularly the larger ones setup scripts to notify their customers daily/weeks of routing deaggregation do you think we might gain some traction in educating and fixing this? Steve
|