Kai, it looks like Sprint is announcing this route. If you are a Sprint customer, I don't recall Sprint saying anything about filtering its own advertisements, either on NANOG or CIDRD.

Also, this is a typo, and it should be 206.82.160/22, no? Sean didn't say anything about filtering 204/N either.

-dorian

Correct. I have other networks in 204, so above was a typo. Also correct: he (rather cryptically) said Sprint wouldn't filter outgoing (hence customer-owned) routes, but he encouraged OTHER providers to do it like Sprint: filter incoming routes by the rules anounced: this has the same effect, but now Sean could point at Digex (should they employ such a filter) "I didn't do it, man!"... This was not the right way to enforce the relevant RFCs, what's an RFC worth that even the Internic doesn't obey ? And , I beg everyone's pardon: I have only read the NANOG list for a few weeks now, could not make it to nearby Pittsburgh,PA (did this topic surface?) due to work pertinent to just this event, but I NEVER heard of this imminent route prefix filtering until now. Given the anti-trust questions this entire issue raises, I don't see a very bright future for the landscape of network operators at this time: If you are small, you can only get a small network assignment (slow start), as you will be running into the Great Wall "Internic" even with a request for a /22, and if you really succeed with your /22 or /20 assignment, you will have to discover that the conspiracy of the big 6 (laugh!) might have decided you are not worthy, and to go route what you got to yourself and don't expect them even wanting to know about it. If, on the other hand, you bravely get your network assignment from your friendly network provider, once you change this very provider, you are told you can't take the networks you got with you to the new provider, or in the event you are going multi-home (foreseeable for MANY larger Web/Slip/PPP-outfits in the next 6-9 months), you aren't allowed (or outright can't) announce those networks via the additional connection, too. I remember a time when 800 numbers belonged to the LD carriers, who had ranges of them assigned/reserved with the "800 number authority" , BellCore. What's left of those ? The lawyers came, technology came, and swept these anti-competitive practises away, and given the changes in switching/routing of telephony switches that were required to allow 800-number portability, I stop to see the 'impossibilitee' of getting just the same together for IP networks. Either we change, or the lawyers will change us, and I feel there is no longer a choice. Changing your network provider with all your attached networks shall be no less painful then changing the LD carrier on your residential telephone line, and this is exactly what even small/mid-sized (16-64 class-C net-strong) providers want. The steps we see now, are exactly the opposite of this (we won't see nice auto-configuring IPv6 networks for years!), which is deeply troubling to anyone who has ever read anti-trust decisions. If it takes a first stone to be thrown, or a walk with the iron cross, count me in, for the better of us all. --- Kai Schlichting Internet Project Manager, BelCom, Inc. 515 Madison Ave Suite 2100 NY,NY 10022 212-705-9500 (voice) 212-755-0864 (fax) kai@belcom.net Ask us about Internet service in the CIS! Bringing Internet, where there is none