Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Minimum prefix length?
From: bdragon () gweep net
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 01:50:41 -0400 (EDT)


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.

It is rare that providers filter on classful boundaries. What is common
is filtering on RIR allocation boundaries. It just happens that in
128/2 nothing longer than /16 has ever been allocated, ttbomk.

Providers should encourage their customers to always originate their
largest aggregate, and _then_ announce (if necessary) any more-specifics
to those they need to and who agree to accept them.

If networks always originated their largest aggregates there wouldn't be
an issue with filtering out long prefixes. The issue is only when a
network announces only the long prefix, and in effect shoots themselves
in the foot by intentionally limitting their own reachability.


  By Date           By Thread  

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