Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

filtering long prefixes
From: Mark Kent <mark () MainStreet Net>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 07:42:36 -0700

I also note that the Internic also had wording which pointed out the
dangers of accepting this sort of prefix from them, right on its
application form, which I reproduce below.

Are you certain that the form you cut that sentence from existed
before any 206 nets were handed out?  Are you certain that everyone
who applied for, and got a block like 206/19, used that form?

In part this is because it gives me the opportunity to study who
has gotten disconnected and how difficult it will be to reconnect
them

The Internet is no longer an experiment.  You can more easily see who
will be affected if they are on-line.  Or are you waiting for the
cards and letters to come pouring in?

"Maybe.  Let's see how bad the mess is first."

By initially routing long prefixes in 206 you are the ones who have
created the mess.  So, you made a mistake.  Move on higher up the
chain and try again.  Cutting off companies retroactively is not the
answer.  You need to put filters in that cut no one off today,
but protect against growth tomorrow.

-mark



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]