North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Clean up your annoucements! Re: The Cidr Report
- From: John M. Brown
- Date: Sun Sep 13 05:14:14 1998
Yup! (I agree with both of your points! :) )
We should allow /24's into the route system and it wouldn't be as big of
a deal if folks like AS701 and others cleaned up there routes.
Many rural providers are going to be multi-homing and thus we are going
to see an increase of /24 - /20 blocks.
At 04:44 AM 9/13/98 -0400, you wrote:
>John M. Brown wrote:
>> Why should they, there is no reason for them to. Personally I wonder what
>> would happen if we (the rest of us) started filtering on /19's or /20's :)
>Not to rehash, but there are legitimate reasons to advertise /24's. I'd
>say that filtering at that level would be reasonable. What bothers me
>is seeing certain networks advertising an aggregate along with all or
>most subnetworks. Being flexible with one's downstreams is one thing,
>irresponsible adverts are another.
>> But then you take UUNET (Alternet) and for example 220.127.116.11 /19
>> is advertised as a /19 AND a stack of /24's all with the same AS path
>> and from what I can tell no special routes, at least not via
>> But what do I know, I am a lonely little guy... :)
>My point exactly :-)
>Network Operations Manager
>Meganet Communications, TCIx, Inc.