North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: More route-table bloat vs. ARIN micro-allocations
- From: I Am Not An Isp
- Date: Sat Feb 19 06:25:45 2000
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
>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. :)
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!!)