UUNet Routing SNAFU

Miquel van Smoorenburg miquels at cistron.nl
Wed Oct 8 22:14:31 UTC 1997

In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.971008141916.316n-100000 at thorn.blackrose.org>,
Dorian R. Kim <dorian at blackrose.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Steve Meuse wrote:
>> At 09:11 AM 10/8/97 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
>> >I understand that it is not to everyone's benefit to filter on the /19
>> >boundary like Sprint does but it seems to be prudent to adopt a /8 filter
>> >on most of the old class A space and a /16 filter on the old class B space.
>> >Other than the need to update these filters as the former class A space is
>> >subdivided I can see no major downside.
>> >
>> >Comments?
>> What about the cable providers that have chunks of 24/8?
>62/8, 63/8 and 64/8 are being assigned now.

Not quite, part or all 62/8 is being assigned by RIPE NCC in Europe, and
they don't give out smaller netblocks than /19's. We have 62.216/19
for example. The not smaller than /19 is common policy of RIPE btw.

   Miquel van      | Cistron Internet Services   --    Alphen aan den Rijn.
   Smoorenburg,    | mailto:info at cistron.nl          http://www.cistron.nl/
miquels at cistron.nl | Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it.

More information about the NANOG mailing list