nanog mailing list archives
Re: Verio Peering Question
From: Paul Schultz <pschultz () pschultz com>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 09:33:12 -0400 (EDT)
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Jeff Mcadams wrote:
Since the length of the prefix bears little correlation to the "importance" of the network being advertised, there is little reason to filter based on the length of the prefix.
In addition to that, the prefix filtering mechanisms that are being discussed don't apply at all to providers who are allocated much larger blocks (/16+) yet feel the need to slice and dice it into individual /20's to steer traffic. Can someone who is in favor of implementing filters explain to me why slicing a /16 into 16 /20's is any different than slicing a /20 into 16 /24's? If the thought is "you're given a /20, i only want to see a /20.." then why doesn't "you're given a /18, I only want to see a /18" also apply? I don't have any hard evidence to know how much of an impact this actually has, but I would be very interested to see how many more specific /19's and /20's exist in a "verio-filtered" table that were allocated as /16's and shorter. Paul
Current thread:
- Re: Verio Peering Question, (continued)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Craig Pierantozzi (Sep 27)
- RE: Verio Peering Question Daniel Golding (Sep 28)
- RE: Verio Peering Question Randy Bush (Sep 28)
- RE: Verio Peering Question Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 28)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Craig Pierantozzi (Sep 27)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Jeff Mcadams (Sep 28)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Paul Schultz (Sep 29)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Paul Vixie (Sep 29)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Randy Bush (Sep 29)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Sam Thomas (Sep 29)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Randy Bush (Sep 29)
