amb at xara.net
Mon Aug 19 18:28:04 UTC 1996
> I agree that the majority of more specifics are mistakes. We use the
> IRR to separate out the inintentional mistakes (the redundancy in that
> statement was intentional:). This does protect us against the all too
> common case of too ignorant of CIDR to know better and registering the
> more specific in the IRR anyway (the intentional mistakes).
Really? I would agree that the majority of more specifics are not in
the IRR. This doesn't necessarilly mean they are mistakes. For instance
we announce a pile of more specifics from other provider aggregates
(intentionally, and with permission) where a customer is renumbering.
These get filtered by Sprint (because they are too long prefixes),
and by ANS (as they aren't in the IRR), but the idea is we propogate
these more specifics as close as possible to the major networks
as possible, so that as far as possible we aren't using the
old providers transit to transit these routes (for several
obvious reasons). We don't put advisories or more specifics in the
IRR for several reasons, not least of which because this is a temporary
arrangement, and sorting out changing guardianship of the RIPE
objects etc. etc. with the old provider who is often slow to
cooperate is simply not worth the hassle.
So I have no problem with either ANS or Sprint's filters, just
don't think *all* non-IRR entered more specifics are mistakes.
More information about the NANOG