We also have NAPs with no traffic, unless you count the Email about them, of course. But, given what I have seen of driving in your area, this is not the case for the VA ZPE-7392 NAP, even with no customers. randy o renumber.
I would expect the world to see the following announcements. A - I announcing a shorter prefix, A B - P announcing a more specific for the /24 allocated to C Is this not what we all expect? Why I ask is we have provider P telling I that they should stop announcing A and instead announce a bunch of prefixes around the /24. Let's get the whole picture: before the move: P announces A'/L1 to <the world> B announces A/L2 to P (where L2 > L1) C announces B/24 to B
You have changed notation and possibly misunderstood what is happening. To retain the original notation (Hints: Provider, ISP, Customer; P and I are multihomed, C never is), before the move: 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 allocated to C and only known internally to I
There is no reason for P to announce anything more specific than A'/L1 to the rest of the world unless B is multihomed.
I (which I think you renamed B) is multihomed.
after the move [(if B is multihomed)]: P announces A'/L1 to <the world> B announces A/L2 to P (where L2 > L1, L2 < 24) B announces A/L2 to <other provider O> P announces A/L2 to <the world> O announces A/L2 to <the world> C announces B/24 to B P announces B/24 to <the world> P announces A'/L1 to <the world> B announces A/L2 to P (where L2 > L1, L2 < 24) C announces B/24 to B
This assumes C is also multi-homed, which is not the case. They merely changed provider from I to P. The C also stands for Churn :-). 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?
The last part is unfortunate.
I would call it seemingly inept (I am still trying to understand why P can't just do the right thing), clearly asocial (though not holding a candle to Telia, Electric Lightwave, and the other shining stars of Tony's list, but I am not bing asked to be an accessory to those <bleep>s), and sufficiently embarrassing that I have not named P (and no, it is not SL). I am just trying to be sure this is indeed as stoopid as it appears to me before making a bit (more) of a fuss. Oh clueful ones at P, please explain where I am misunderstanding things as usual. randy