nanog mailing list archives
Re: /24s run amuck
From: John Payne <john () sackheads org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:37:36 -0500
--On Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:36 PM -0500 Daniel Golding <dgolding () burtongroup com> wrote:
There is one mechanism for helping to solve this. Is there an RFC, informational or otherwise that clearly specifies that BGP announcements to peers and transit providers must be aggregated to the greatest extent possible?
Just want to clarify that BGP announcements to peers should by default be aggregated as far as possible, but can be completely deaggregated if both parties agree.
For example, if you have a BGP session with my employer and we haven't mentioned it recently, we would *love* deaggregation. Send us /32s, MEDs, communities and we'll chew it up and ask for more.
But we're special - we don't have a network and we don't sell transit.
Current thread:
- Re: /24s run amuck, (continued)
- Re: /24s run amuck Patrick W . Gilmore (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck John Palmer (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Daniel Golding (Jan 14)
- Re: /24s run amuck Randy Bush (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Patrick W . Gilmore (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Richard A Steenbergen (Jan 13)
- Message not available
- Re: router design (was Re: /24s run amuck) Richard A Steenbergen (Jan 13)
- Re: router design (was Re: /24s run amuck) Rafi Sadowsky (Jan 17)
- Re: /24s run amuck Daniel Golding (Jan 14)
- Re: /24s run amuck Daniel Senie (Jan 14)
- Re: /24s run amuck John Payne (Jan 14)
- Re: /24s run amuck Patrick W . Gilmore (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Steve Francis (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Patrick W . Gilmore (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Frank Louwers (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Simon Leinen (Jan 15)
- Re: /24s run amuck Patrick W . Gilmore (Jan 13)