North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Traffic to our customer's address(18.104.22.168/8) seems blocked by pa cket filter
- From: Fergie (Paul Ferguson)
- Date: Wed Aug 03 23:51:13 2005
Mea culpa: I meant "a few /16's" as opposed to "2"...
No flames, it's too late...
-- "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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?
-- Philip Smith <email@example.com> wrote:
firstname.lastname@example.org 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
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?