North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
- From: Robert A. Rosenberg
- Date: Wed Jan 31 04:13:31 1996
At 5:48 1/30/96, Alex.Bligh wrote:
>Thankyou for the first constructive workable suggestion had so far. However,
>this has two problems.
>a) RIPE fidn't give me the first /19 in a shorted prefix block
> ( its x.x.160.x and .192.x is used), but no matter, I'll renumber
> if necessary :-( or persuade them to give me a /18 as well so I
> can do the above (hopefully).
My convert the /19 to an /18 was a way to get minimal extra announcements.
Getting a new /19 and keeping the first 3 /21s for your own use and giving
them the 4th, still adds only one EXTRA announcement (over the need to
announce the [new] /19 itself).
>b) The /21 advert may be inbound filtered by a.n.other, which will be
> fine if it has an AS-Path through me (as the less specific route
> will work the same way) but won't when that path goes through the
> other provider with whom they are multi-homed, as the /21 will disappear
> entirely (3rd parties, i.e. a.n.other's customers will see neither),
> the /19 will be the only thing that is visible, and I'll just black
> hole their packets.
As a Multi-Home (as opposed to a Private) /21 it should (theoretically) be
entitled to being added to the filter lists as valid - Getting this done is
a political problem. You should not be black holing the packets since your
receipt of them is VALID (since they are Multi-Homed as opposed to having
walked with the block).