I got two nice replies from Sprint. They won't change their filtering policy overnight but they are at least considering it. I think they're interested in listening to customers on the issue, but please don't spamm or rant......hey if they do change it I might resubscribe to nanog :) I removed their email addresses because they didn't post it to nanog. Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 16:08:46 -0400 From: -removed- @sprint.net To: Aaron Branham <abranham@ind.net> Subject: Re: 165.138.0.0 Aaron, We have been talking internally about changing the policy for some time now. We are trying hard to figure out what really makes sense. With our entire core network made up of GSRs, we are capable of handling very large routing tables. I think the original intent of the policy was valid, even though it was unpopular. You are right, times have changed, and it may be the time to change the policy. Rational feedback from customers, such as you, as well as others in the industry will play heavily in our decision. However, don't look for it to happen over night as the result of some thread on nanog. Thanks again for your comments. ------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 16:01:48 -0400 (EDT) From: -removed- @sprint.net To: Aaron Branham <abranham@ind.net> Cc: SEAN@SDG.DRA.COM Subject: Re: 165.138.0.0 I don't want to get into a religious war over filters and our policy in that respect (especially on email :-). I just wanted to say that I did clean up the 129.122/16 as much as possible. The reason we don't just have one route in there is that the customer has multiple circuits with static routes. - - Aaron Branham [AKB8] (a@ind.net) <Phone# 317.263.8976>