Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Minimum prefix length?
From: "Temkin, David" <temkin () sig com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:03:43 -0400

A few years ago I had an issue with a few of the larger carriers rejecting
my routes (from a natural Class B space) because their prefix length was too
short (at one point I simply had the /16 divided into two /17's and this
still got rejected in some places).  I can't remember which carriers
exactly, but it may have been some larger transit providers like
AboveNet/etc.

Anyone know what the current attitude is by carriers about this?  Nowadays
with ever-growing memory and CPU it doesn't seem like it's as much of an
issue.  In an environment where we're all trying to conserve address space
watching natural boundries doesn't seem all that smart.




IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its
attachments.  Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of
this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly
prohibited.  Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or
should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or
sell any security or other financial instrument.  Neither the sender, his or
her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as
to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein
or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.



  By Date           By Thread  

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