69/8...this sucks -- Centralizing filtering..

Mon Mar 10 22:30:20 UTC 2003

DR> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 23:10:35 +0100
DR> From: Daniel Roesen

DR> Can you point out where the rule is written that noone is to
DR> announce a prefix with length le 7? Just we don't see it now
DR> doesn't mean we won't see it sometime in the future...

Ditto ge 25.  I might have missed the RFC where that was
specified; AFAIK, it's a de facto standard.

Here's a big difference:  Assume all /8 (except for 0/8, 127/8,
and 224/3) could be aggregated.  How many announcements would be
saved?  I could live with 200-some /8 announcements as a result
of shorter prefixes being deaggregated.  I suspect announcing
uebershort prefixes isn't a big concern.

Let's first address the issue of stray /24 prefixes.  Your
question is interesting in theory, but has little applicability
to operational practices.  It shouldn't be forgotten, and anyone
using an "le 7" filter should stay on top of things...  but I
don't see it as a pressing issue.

Better yet, let RIRs allocate based on prefix length.  Then
Verio-style filters would work great, save for small multihomed
networks.  However, if said multihomed nets used IRRs...

Uhoh.  Combining a handful on NANOG threads probably is a
dangerous thing to do.

Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist at brics.com>
To: blacklist at brics.com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <blacklist at brics.com>, or you are likely to
be blocked.