North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: 69/8...this sucks -- Centralizing filtering..
DR> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 23:10:35 +0100 DR> From: Daniel Roesen DR> Can you point out where the rule is written that noone is to DR> announce a prefix with length le 7? Just we don't see it now DR> doesn't mean we won't see it sometime in the future... Ditto ge 25. I might have missed the RFC where that was specified; AFAIK, it's a de facto standard. Here's a big difference: Assume all /8 (except for 0/8, 127/8, and 224/3) could be aggregated. How many announcements would be saved? I could live with 200-some /8 announcements as a result of shorter prefixes being deaggregated. I suspect announcing uebershort prefixes isn't a big concern. Let's first address the issue of stray /24 prefixes. Your question is interesting in theory, but has little applicability to operational practices. It shouldn't be forgotten, and anyone using an "le 7" filter should stay on top of things... but I don't see it as a pressing issue. Better yet, let RIRs allocate based on prefix length. Then Verio-style filters would work great, save for small multihomed networks. However, if said multihomed nets used IRRs... Uhoh. Combining a handful on NANOG threads probably is a dangerous thing to do. Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <email@example.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.