good advice for operators (forwarded, with commentary)
The muckslinging here reminds me of the break between the operators and the IETF -- the users go on and on about the evil motives of the operators big & small, and demonstrate their lack of understanding or lack of social skills in the process enough that operators decide it's no longer fun to play. I got a message from an operator people would recognize that is interesting, useful, and relevant to operations. Hopefully the good advice in here won't get lost just because the author in question is on the "filtering side". "announce ... aggregates [, develop a] sensible policy [, and acquire] /20's for each location." Who can argue with that? Those of you who feel that regional & local ISPs are being persecuted, please tattoo that advice on your forehead, backwards, so you can see it reflected in your monitor next time before you flame on NANOG about how horrible filtering long prefixes is. My correspondent and his or her colleagues will appreciate the reduction in stomach acids which are not good for any engineer's duodenum. Sean. PS: Well, it's even better if you never announce the more specifics in the first place, imho, but... - -- | of course. it may not be appropriate for someone paid by "X" | to be posting or the source of the comments | | [...] | | On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 05:46:56PM -0700, Sean M. Doran wrote: | > can i quote these two paragraphs please, anonymously or otherwise? | > or encourage you to post them? | > | > they are an important dose of factual information | > | > Sean. | > | > ps - bad cold, hence in for the night bored | > - -- | > | if people would just announce their /16's, /20's or aggregates | > | as well as the specifics it would solve the problem. people don't | > | understand their allocations then complain to us. | > | | > | the obvious case of that is when people get a /20 then | > | split the /24's into different geographic regions. as long as | > | they have a sensible policy, the rir will assign them /20's for | > | each location.
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 18:29:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Sean M. Doran <smd@clock.org>
The muckslinging here reminds me of the break between
[ snip ]
I got a message from an operator people would recognize that is interesting, useful, and relevant to operations.
Hopefully the good advice in here won't get lost just because the author in question is on the "filtering side".
I get it, now. It's "pro-filtering" and "anti-filtering". There's no gray area. *sigh* Sign me up for party #3, selective filtering, in the flamefest
"announce ... aggregates [, develop a] sensible policy [, and acquire] /20's for each location."
Who can argue with that?
Sounds good to me.
Those of you who feel that regional & local ISPs are being persecuted, please tattoo that advice on your forehead, backwards, so you can see it reflected in your monitor next time before you flame on NANOG about how horrible filtering long prefixes is.
Muckslinging? pot --> kettle --> black
My correspondent and his or her colleagues will appreciate the reduction in stomach acids which are not good for any engineer's duodenum.
No kidding.
PS: Well, it's even better if you never announce the more specifics in the first place, imho, but...
Unless, again, there is no alternative.
| > ps - bad cold, hence in for the night bored | > - -- | > | if people would just announce their /16's, /20's or aggregates | > | as well as the specifics it would solve the problem. people don't | > | understand their allocations then complain to us. | > | | > | the obvious case of that is when people get a /20 then | > | split the /24's into different geographic regions. as long as | > | they have a sensible policy, the rir will assign them /20's for | > | each location.
No problem with this. Does this mean multihoming automatically qualifies one for a /20? If not, we still have a reason to allow longer than /20. Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
At 06:29 PM 9/28/2001 -0700, Sean M. Doran wrote:
"announce ... aggregates [, develop a] sensible policy [, and acquire] /20's for each location."
| > | the obvious case of that is when people get a /20 then | > | split the /24's into different geographic regions. as long as | > | they have a sensible policy, the rir will assign them /20's for | > | each location.
Sean, I really, really think you are missing the point. How is this of any possible use to companies / providers who do not even qualify for a single /20? -- TTFN, patrick
participants (3)
-
E.B. Dreger -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
smd＠clock.org