Re: More route-table bloat vs. ARIN micro-allocations

[I Am Not An Isp]

At 01:27 AM 2/19/00 -0700, John M. Brown wrote:
>
>Yes, 3561 is one of our transit.  This isn't about what filters we have
>or don't have.  its about the fact that from my view there are some
>announcements
>that really shouldn't be on the net in the first place.

The point is, those /27s, /30s and /32s are *not* on the 'Net, they are 
internal to C&W.  You should not condemn the global table because C&W leaks 
specifics to their customers.

Those other routes - like 64/8, AS7046, etc. - *are* on the global table 
and should be cleaned up.  But no one seems to care about that any more.

I find it amusing that some people who argue against micro-allocations say 
nothing about this added waste.  Hypocrisy always amuses me.  (It has to or 
it would piss me off.)


>Some providers (some of our other transits) provide a cleaner table.

They probably put the same "sanity" filters on their customers that they 
put on their peers.  I used to do that (when I had enable :).


>Personally it seems many BGP folks are lazy and don't keep things clean....

That, my friend, is and has been obvious for many years. :)


>I thought patrick got enabled?  I know if I keep this up, I will loose it :)

Got it, configured a few routers, changed positions, lost it.  Now I go 
around buying other ISPs instead of configuring routers on my own network.

Am I automatically wrong because I do not have enable?  Many probably think 
so.  Maybe they are right. :)


TTFN,
patrick

--
  I Am Not An Isp - www.ianai.net
  ISPF, The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com>
  "Think of it as evolution in action." - Niven & Pournelle
  (Enable?  We dunt need no stinkin' enable!!)