Sprint's route filters and Europe

Curtis Villamizar curtis at ans.net
Tue Jun 4 00:13:58 UTC 1996

In message <199606030827.JAA06158 at diamond.xara.net>, "Alex.Bligh" writes:
> Michael Dillon wrote:
> > Sorry, I should have clarified. It's something I haulled off of an ISP
> > discussion list and it appears that some of RIPE's activities may be
> > butting heads with Sprint's route filtering policies. Specifically, RIPE
> > is charging a fee to ISP's to get large blocks of IP addresses to allocate
> > to their customers and yet these blocks are smaller than what Sprint will
> > route.
> Specifically RIPE are allocating /19s as their default allocation window
> to local-IRs. They don't charge per block but they charge a yearly fee
> for being a local-IR. Sprint in its wisdom is filtering those in 195/8
> (great theory, but a bit problematic in practice when it can't agree with
> one of the larger registries on what size to filter) with the result
> there are now likely to be 50% more adverts (i.e. 2x/19 and an additional
> /18 - /19 still necessary to get ANS to work as you can't put a /18
> route object in the database).

Since when can't you put a /18 in the database?

It sounds like what you are saying is you will be advertising 2 /19s
plus advertising a /18 that you won't be registering just to get the
traffic to come out of Sprint.

You can certainly register a /18 and the whole world would much rather
you advertised just the /18 and and not the /19s.

This sounds to me like some people don't know or care who the other
/19 belongs to and are just announcing the /18 for Sprint's sake.  The
two /19s would be announced regardless of anything ANS does or
regardless of any registry issues.  Is this the case?


More information about the NANOG mailing list