Yup! (I agree with both of your points! :) ) We should allow /24's into the route system and it wouldn't be as big of a deal if folks like AS701 and others cleaned up there routes. Many rural providers are going to be multi-homing and thus we are going to see an increase of /24 - /20 blocks. jmbrown@ihighway.net At 04:44 AM 9/13/98 -0400, you wrote:
John M. Brown wrote:
Why should they, there is no reason for them to. Personally I wonder what would happen if we (the rest of us) started filtering on /19's or /20's :)
Not to rehash, but there are legitimate reasons to advertise /24's. I'd say that filtering at that level would be reasonable. What bothers me is seeing certain networks advertising an aggregate along with all or most subnetworks. Being flexible with one's downstreams is one thing, irresponsible adverts are another.
But then you take UUNET (Alternet) and for example 207.170.32.0 /19 is advertised as a /19 AND a stack of /24's all with the same AS path and from what I can tell no special routes, at least not via nitrous.digex.net But what do I know, I am a lonely little guy... :)
My point exactly :-)
--
Brian Wallingford Network Operations Manager Meganet Communications, TCIx, Inc.