North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: and we worry about route table bloat with micro-alloc ????
- From: Josh Richards
- Date: Thu Feb 24 13:12:24 2000
On 18 Feb 2000, John M. Brown said something about:
> *> 12.2.19.0/25 166.48.176.25 0 3561 11277 i
> *> 12.16.207.0/25 166.48.176.25 0 3561 7217 i
This is nothing new. And even if it was: you have an inbound routing
policy developed (and enforced via "distribute-list xxx in" or
equivalent), right? :)
Better yet, perhaps AS3561/AS11277/AS7217 should have an outbound routing
policy (that is actually enforced). Perhaps they do, and theirs allows
for these size prefixes. But does that mean you have to accept them?
-jr
----
Josh Richards [JTR38/JR539-ARIN], Director of Engineering/Network Operations
The FIX Network, Inc. - San Luis Obispo, CA - <URL:http://www.fix.net/>
|
