and we worry about route table bloat with micro-alloc ????
*> 12.2.19.0/25 166.48.176.25 0 3561 11277 i *> 12.16.207.0/25 166.48.176.25 0 3561 7217 i
*> 12.2.19.0/25 166.48.176.25 0 3561 11277 i *> 12.16.207.0/25 166.48.176.25 0 3561 7217 i
funny, we don't see that in our routers. Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * i12.0.0.0 129.250.9.50 2147483647 100 0 7018 i *>i 192.205.31.201 2147483647 100 0 7018 i * i 129.250.0.13 2147483647 100 0 7018 i * i12.13.224.0/19 129.250.9.50 2147483647 100 0 7018 196 i *>i 192.205.31.201 2147483647 100 0 7018 196 i * i 129.250.0.13 2147483647 100 0 7018 196 i i wonder why. :-) randy
On 18 Feb 2000, John M. Brown said something about:
*> 12.2.19.0/25 166.48.176.25 0 3561 11277 i *> 12.16.207.0/25 166.48.176.25 0 3561 7217 i
This is nothing new. And even if it was: you have an inbound routing policy developed (and enforced via "distribute-list xxx in" or equivalent), right? :) Better yet, perhaps AS3561/AS11277/AS7217 should have an outbound routing policy (that is actually enforced). Perhaps they do, and theirs allows for these size prefixes. But does that mean you have to accept them? -jr ---- Josh Richards [JTR38/JR539-ARIN], Director of Engineering/Network Operations The FIX Network, Inc. - San Luis Obispo, CA - <URL:http://www.fix.net/>
participants (3)
-
John M. Brown -
Josh Richards -
Randy Bush