North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: 1.1.1.0/24

  • From: tvo
  • Date: Thu May 14 16:08:13 1998

I have yet to see a mandate that stated that we must filter any prefix
longer than /19.  If you choose to filter at /19 that is your choice.  We
choose to have connectivity that isn't hampered to someone who actually
has a classfull C somewhere on the net.  As for filtering 1.1.1.1/24 or
the entire block because it is reserved for that matter, who is to say
that with the address space thinning out that the IANA won't start
allocating it?  Some poor provider is going to be route filtered on a
totally legitimate block if we use your reasoning.

Filtering announcements from your downstreams for blocks that they are not
allocated on the other hand IS not only legitimate but something that I
would consider a moral responsibility of every provider.  If they are not
multi-homed, why listen to ANYTHING that comes from them?  Static route
them and you have no worries.

So, in answer to your question, it is the provider who makes the bogus
announcement for whatever reason they made it and not the providers who
listen to it who has less of a clue.


> >Looks like PSInet is demonstrating their complete and total lack of clue
> >again.
> 
> Who has less of a clue?  A provider that announces a 1.1.1.0/24, or
> a provider that listens to junk like 1.1.1.0/24?
> 
> It doesn't matter what junk is announced, *IF* you could get providers
> not to listen to it.
> -- 
> Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
>   Affiliation given for identification not representation
> 



-------
John Fraizer    (tvo)           |    __   _
The System Administrator        |   / /  (_)__  __ ____  __ | The choice
mailto:tvo@EnterZone.Net        |  / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / |  of a GNU
http://www.EnterZone.Net/       | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation
                     A 486 is a terrible thing to waste...