Re: and we worry about route table bloat with micro-alloc ????

[Josh Richards <jrichard () fix net>]

On 18 Feb 2000, John M. Brown said something about:

> *> 12.2.19.0/25     166.48.176.25                        0 3561 11277 i
> *> 12.16.207.0/25   166.48.176.25                        0 3561 7217 i

This is nothing new.  And even if it was: you have an inbound routing
policy developed (and enforced via "distribute-list xxx in" or
equivalent), right? :) 

Better yet, perhaps AS3561/AS11277/AS7217 should have an outbound routing
policy (that is actually enforced).  Perhaps they do, and theirs allows
for these size prefixes.  But does that mean you have to accept them? 

-jr

----
Josh Richards [JTR38/JR539-ARIN], Director of Engineering/Network Operations
The FIX Network, Inc. - San Luis Obispo, CA - <URL:http://www.fix.net/>