nanog mailing list archives
Re: routing table size
From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph () istop com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 13:39:02 -0400 (EDT)
Off your network, your legal rights are pretty limited. I (and I'm sure lots of other admins) block at the /24 boundry. Anything you announce from /25 to /32 will be ignored on my network. Some providers choose to block according to RIR allocation sizes. To me, that's not worth the maintenance hassle. To them, it may mean the difference between having to upgrade or replace large numbers of routers last year or sometime in the next few years.
I've never suggested accepting /25's thru /32's. I'm wondering if the people saying I should not de-aggregage my /20 actually practice what they preach and filter /24's and don't globally announce /24's from their customers. -Ralph
Current thread:
- routing table size Ralph Doncaster (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size Bradley Dunn (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size gg (Jul 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: routing table size Ralph Doncaster (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size David Schwartz (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size David Schwartz (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size Brian (Jul 29)
- Re: routing table size Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 29)
- Re: routing table size Paul Schultz (Jul 29)
- RE: routing table size Phil Rosenthal (Jul 29)
- RE: routing table size jnull (Jul 29)
- Re: routing table size David Schwartz (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size Bradley Dunn (Jul 27)
- RE: routing table size Mark Radabaugh (Jul 29)