Re: routing table size

["Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () opaltelecom co uk>]

I've a feeling that the fact that everyone shares at least the view that a /24
is minimum helps to contain the routing table. (even if there are still
thousands of /24 announcements)

If a significant number of providers starting accepting any prefix then the
others would need to follow (else they'd get no transit traffic as it will
always prefer the most specific). This really would lead to route explosion!

I guess the counter argument is that you'd still get the same number of
announcements at longer prefixes as there are only lots of /24s as its the
current shortest (if you catch my drift here). But I doubt it is quite that
straight forward and there would be a growth in announcements..

Steve

On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, David Schwartz wrote:

> > 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
>
>       What's wrong with announcing routes from your customers? Even /32s if you
> want. Only those people who choose to accept them will be affected by them
> and anyone who you have a BGP session with can insist you filter them out.
> Treating different situations as if they were the same is not practicing what
> you preach.
>
>       DS