North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU
- From: Miquel van Smoorenburg
- Date: Thu Oct 09 10:14:45 1997
- Distribution: cistron
- Newsgroups: lists.nanog
In article <Pine.GSO.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Dorian R. Kim <email@example.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Steve Meuse wrote:
>> At 09:11 AM 10/8/97 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
>> >I understand that it is not to everyone's benefit to filter on the /19
>> >boundary like Sprint does but it seems to be prudent to adopt a /8 filter
>> >on most of the old class A space and a /16 filter on the old class B space.
>> >Other than the need to update these filters as the former class A space is
>> >subdivided I can see no major downside.
>> What about the cable providers that have chunks of 24/8?
>62/8, 63/8 and 64/8 are being assigned now.
Not quite, part or all 62/8 is being assigned by RIPE NCC in Europe, and
they don't give out smaller netblocks than /19's. We have 62.216/19
for example. The not smaller than /19 is common policy of RIPE btw.
Miquel van | Cistron Internet Services -- Alphen aan den Rijn.
Smoorenburg, | mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.cistron.nl/
email@example.com | Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it.