On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, Randy Bush wrote:
> after the move (as it should be):
> P announces A'/L1 some block containing I's block, A
> I announces A/L2 (where A is within A' & L2>L1) to P and other(s)
> P and others announce A/L2 which they hear from I
> B/24 is contained in A and is a static route to C and known internally
> to P (note change from I)
> P should announce B/24
>
> after then P claims that the following must occur:
> P will not do the last above, announce B/24
> I is being told to announce a *mess* of *pieces* of A (to 'get around'
> B/24) to P and their other upstream(s) because P can not seem to
> properly announce all of A', A, and B
> P and others should announce the *many* *pieces* of A/L2 they hear
> from I
> P still announces A', which is now the only covering prefix for B/24,
> thereby turning a /24 into many smallish announcements.
>
> And, given prefix length filters around the net, guess who eats it, I and
> I's customers who now have many pieces of A as opposed to A. And this
> gives one a suspicion why P and C don't want B/24 to be announced. But why
> should I, I's customers, and the rest of the net pay for this?
I should not. I should find a new P if P is going to play this game. P and
C are lucky I is nice enough to give them time to renumber. If P continues
to be belligerent about this, I should immediately assign B/24 to someone
else.
-BD
