North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: More route-table bloat vs. ARIN micro-allocations
John M. Brown writes: >My point is that if folks like AS 701 would clean up there announcements >(and its one of several reasons I don't buy transit from them) then we would >have less bloat in the system. 701 per se is not the problem, as proportionally it's quite a bit better than most of the other large ASes. It only appears on the list because it is large in absolute numbers. Now 7046, which is UUNET customers announcing routes themselves, is pretty bad, and is a slightly harder problem to solve, although not impossible by any means. >Yes, I'd rather see additional routes so that more providers are better >connected. Otherwords Micro-Allocations from RIR's would provide: > >1. Better connectivity options for the bulk of the providers out there (not big ones) >2. Flexibility to add or change providers for the ISP's >3. Encouragement to multi-home by allowing MA's >4. Less hassles and negative impact on customers from renumbering. > (NSI Makes it a real hassle to renumber via updates to host records) This is not compatible with the goal of holding steady the number of routes. >But the widespread deagg to /24 doesn't seem to really help improve connectivity I suspect a lot of it is not intentional.