Re: Traffic to our customer's address(126.0.0.0/8) seems blocked by packet filter

[Fergie (Paul Ferguson)]

Philip,

This sounds very much like a bully -- 2 /16's are a major
problem, as opposed to a single /8?

Where is the major heartburn in this particlualr case?

I could understand if here were lots of farctured
annnounced space (granted: I haven't checked this yet),
but what's up with that?

- ferg


-- Philip Smith <pfs@cisco.com> wrote:


mkawano@bb.softbank.co.jp said the following on 4/8/05 12:03:

FWIW, if you don't announce your aggregate, do not be surprised if you
experience continued disconnectivity to many parts of the Internet. Some
SPs notice that SoftbankBB have received 126/8, so will likely filter as
such. Leaking sub-prefixes may be fine for traffic engineering, but this
generally only works best if you include a covering aggregate.

Try including your /8 announcement and see if this improves reachability
for you.

Out of curiosity, why pick on a /16 for traffic engineering? Most people
tend to analyse traffic flows and pick the appropriate address space
size as a subdivision. Or do you have 256 links to upstream ISPs and
need that level of fine-tuning?

best wishes,

philip