nanog mailing list archives
filtering long prefixes
From: Mark Kent <mark () MainStreet Net>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 03:21:19 -0700
Sean, the number of rejected /19 prefixes in the 206 block would tend to indicate that your policy of filtering out prefixes longer than /18 is at odds with how these blocks were assigned by the NIC. Hence, I'ld strongly suggest that you attempt to fix the problem at the source rather than with direct engineering terrorism. If it is too late to correct allocation policy for 206, then you had better focus your attention on future allocations and try to synchronize your filtering policy to better match the actual mechanisms in use today. To translate that last sentence: "Please allow 206/19 prefixes." -mark
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)
- Re: filtering long prefixes Sean Doran (Sep 21)
(Thread continues...)