nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x?
From: Dave Siegel <dsiegel () rtd com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 11:57:41 -0700 (MST)
MCI aggregates all its customer's routes into /19's. We have just received our first block of address space from the 207.x.x.x range. If you continue to filter at /18's for the 207.x.x.x range, you won't be able to reach all of MCI's customers. Needless to say MCI would appreciate it if you'd change your policy to be /19's, and I'm sure Sprint's customers would appreciate it as well. ========== Aside from what Daniel says about Sprint and MCI's routing policy mismatch, this statement is interesting on another level. For Dan says: MCI aggregates all its customer's routes into /19's. This is new is it not? Also it says *MCI* does the aggregating and not the customer.
That may hold true internally, however, I suspect that externally, they announce only /16's or /15's. Of course, I could be wrong. What I see right now, is only one announcement from the 207 block...a /19 coming from netaxs, and then some customer of PSI is announcing 5 or so /24's in the 208 block!
Would someone please explain how this differs from what I understand to be Sprints policy which says (i believe) that it is the CUSTOMER's responsibility to aggregate the routes they present to sprint???
Sprint already proxy-aggregates for many of their customers. Most of them probably don't realize it. It doesn't even affect most of them.
Why would MCI do the aggregating? Is such mci policy good for mci or good for the customer or equally good for both?
Depends on the situation as to whether it's detrimental. Proxy-aggregation, as this is called, can alter traffic patterns in dual-homed situations. The change is not always bad, though it is often un-desirable. In general, proxy-aggregation is good for everybody. Dave -- Dave Siegel President, RTD Systems & Networking, Inc. (520)623-9663 Network Engineer -- Regional/National NSPs (Cisco) dsiegel () rtd com User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP, http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/ for an ISP."
Current thread:
- Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Avi Freedman (Dec 12)
- Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Sean Doran (Dec 12)
- Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Daniel M. Barton (Dec 13)
- Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Gordon Cook (Dec 13)
- Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Avi Freedman (Dec 13)
- Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Jon Zeeff (Dec 13)
- Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Dave Siegel (Dec 13)
- Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Jon Zeeff (Dec 13)
- Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? bmanning (Dec 13)
- Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Gordon Cook (Dec 13)
- Re: Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? bmanning (Dec 13)
- Re: Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Sean Doran (Dec 16)
- Re: Routing registry was Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? bmanning (Dec 17)
- Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Daniel M. Barton (Dec 13)
- Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Sean Doran (Dec 12)
- Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Avi Freedman (Dec 13)
- Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Jeremy Porter (Dec 13)
- Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Daniel Karrenberg (Dec 14)
- Re: Sprint BGP filters in 207.x.x.x? Curtis Villamizar (Dec 15)
