<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/11/22 00:37, Matthew Petach
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEmG1=oc3bNjp2oxBREd4fkrU1Q177Z1QHrg+VvfEz1FgRP5Xw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">They became even more huffy, insisting
that we were breaking the internet by not
<div>following the correct routing for the more-specific /24s
which were no longer present </div>
<div>in our tables. No amount of trying to explain to them
that they should not advertise </div>
<div>an aggregate route if no connectivity to the more
specific constituents existed seemed </div>
<div>to get the point across. In their eyes, advertising the
/24s meant that everyone should </div>
<div>follow the more specific route to the final destination
directly.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Certainly, an interesting, half-technical angle to consider when
thinking of doing something like this. <br>
<br>
Folk that are pushing out /24's with the expectation of the rest of
the Internet steering traffic a certain way toward them, being
surprised by the "brokenness" that can be created due to the
decision to override "longest match" in favour of spending less
cash.<br>
<br>
Who has the right to complain the least, or the most, in such a
situation?<br>
<br>
A: "So why don't you have a bigger router that can take our
/24?"<br>
<br>
B: "Well, we don't have the money to afford taking a /24."<br>
<br>
A: "Ummh... but you are breaking BGP, and..."<br>
<br>
B: "Yeah... it's my Autonomous System. Sorry!"<br>
<br>
As my South African friend would say, "It's wild".<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>