nanog mailing list archives
Re: filtering long prefixes
From: Geert Jan de Groot <GeertJan.deGroot () ripe net>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 11:59:10 +0200
On Thu, 21 Sep 1995 05:27:36 -0400 Sean Doran wrote:
reject BGP announcements which: -- are an old-style classful B network with a mask longer than 16 bits
We have assigned 'chunks' of old-style B's in cases where it made a significant difference (obsolete equipment). Again, I see no technical reason not to do this; as far as your routers are concerned, there is not difference between 191.191.0.0/18 and 194.194.0.0/18 Geert Jan (trying not to get into the discussion of the validity of prefix length filtering again)
Current thread:
- filtering long prefixes Sean Doran (Sep 21)
- Re: filtering long prefixes Geert Jan de Groot (Sep 21)
- filtering long prefixes Mark Kent (Sep 21)
- Re: filtering long prefixes Hans-Werner Braun (Sep 21)
- Re: filtering long prefixes Nick Williams (Sep 21)
- Re: filtering long prefixes John Bradley (Sep 21)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: filtering long prefixes Sean Doran (Sep 21)
- Re: filtering long prefixes Sean Doran (Sep 21)
- Re: filtering long prefixes Willi Huber (Sep 26)
- Re: filtering long prefixes Sean Doran (Sep 21)
- filtering long prefixes Mark Kent (Sep 21)
- Re: filtering long prefixes Dave Siegel (Sep 22)
- filtering long prefixes Mark Kent (Sep 21)
(Thread continues...)