Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
Alex P. Rudnev
alex at virgin.relcom.eu.net
Sun Dec 5 07:48:05 UTC 1999
I just agree. It was only 4x improvement.
I think Tony did the excellent answer. I want to highlight the danger of such,
non-coordinated extra filtering done by one ISP. It's really dangerous for the
Internet. On the other hand, no one can allow /32 or /28 prefixes, and no one
like (but everyone allow) /24 and /23 prefixes. And I knew a few cases when such
prefixes was injected into the global network in purpose (it was the only chance
to get the riught result quickly).
In addition, such filtering cause extra usage of the adress space, and I prefere
to see less limits in the prefix sizes because the exhausting of the address
space is real danger (not as the CPU or router memory lack).
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999 smd at clock.org wrote:
> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 15:22:19 -0800
> From: smd at clock.org
> To: alex at virgin.relcom.eu.net, rmeyer at mhsc.com
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu, randy at psg.com, tony1 at home.net
> Subject: RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
> | The memory for the routing tables was a deal just about 2 years ago; this
> | became easier to maintain big tables today (when routers can be easily upgraded
> | to 256 MB RAM).
> So, Alex, this is a 4x improvement over the situation in 1995,
> when 64Mb was possible but rare...
(+1 415) 585-3489 /San Francisco CA/
More information about the NANOG