On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, Randy Bush wrote:

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?

I should not. I should find a new P if P is going to play this game. P and C are lucky I is nice enough to give them time to renumber. If P continues to be belligerent about this, I should immediately assign B/24 to someone else. -BD