/24s run amuck

Daniel Senie dts at senie.com
Wed Jan 14 21:56:50 UTC 2004


At 03:36 PM 1/14/2004, Daniel Golding wrote:


>Sadly, the type of person that public shame would work on, is the type of
>person that is already taking care of the problem, or will be soon.
>
>There is one mechanism for helping to solve this. Is there an RFC,
>informational or otherwise that clearly specifies that BGP announcements to
>peers and transit providers must be aggregated to the greatest extent
>possible? If not, someone should write one. If yes, they lets publicize it.
>This is a wonderful tool for network engineers to take to their managers, so
>they can say "look, we have to do this, the RFC says so, and we MUST be RFC
>complaint or #insert-horrible-thing will happen to us".
>
>We live in a world of PHBs (Point Haired Bosses - see dilbert)

When those engineers succeed with their bosses in keeping RFC 1918 
addresses off the backbone (read it, 1918 is a BCP, and says that), or when 
those engineers manage to implement RFC 2827 -- ingress filtering (also 
BCP) then maybe you'll have some ammunition that having a BCP about prefix 
filtering will be respected.

RFCs make suggestions. BCPs make stronger suggestions than some other RFCs, 
but clearly much of the community doesn't care, and ignores them just the same.




More information about the NANOG mailing list