The Cidr Report
jmcburnett at msmgmt.com
Fri Nov 14 19:41:40 UTC 2003
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> > Stephen J. Wilcox writes on 11/14/2003 7:16 AM:
> > > So anyway, was discussing the cidr report at the last
> nanog.. I was pointing out
> > > that deaggregation is discouraged by the naming and
> shaming and then someone
> > > else pointed out that this list has scarcely altered in months.
> > >
> > > So, what can we do as the operator community if this
> report isnt having the
> > > desired effect?
> > Stop accepting /24 type routes?
Please no... That will drop me off the map..
> Yeah maybe but what about where the RIRs have assigned
> independent /24 space..
> or ISPs have subdelegated the IPs to a multihomed customer,
> was more thinking
> about where a bunch of routes originating from a single ASN
> can be aggregated
> rather than routing bloat in general. There are numerous such
> examples of people
> with eg a /19 announcing 32x /24 etc
I don't have the stats handy at the moment, but we decided to Multi-home
I researched several issues with /24 blocks. One thing that seemed to stick
out was that some providers were using /20 and /21 as "multi-home" blocks.
They were reserving that block just for /24 multi-homing.. and I also remember
that of the /24 being annouced independently, a majority of them were not
just how bad is the auto-summarization at the upstream for the route propagation
via BGP in the large routers anyway?
More information about the NANOG