nanog mailing list archives
Re: /24s run amuck
From: Simon Leinen <simon () limmat switch ch>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:29:38 +0100
Frank Louwers writes:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 04:12:13PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Filtering on a /20 or whatever (up to /24) is a bad thing because RIPE (and maybe APNIC) actually gives out /24 PI space, that comes out of RIPE's /8's, not your upstream's /20 or /16 or /whatever...
Yes, but those PIs are allocated from specific sub-ranges that are documented. So you can still filter MOST of the space by allocation boundaries, and accept /24 only in the "PI" ranges. We do this. This is RIPE-specific (we aggregate most non-RIPE routes under 0.0.0.0/0), but other RIRs may have similar policies, although probably with easier-to-find PI swamp ranges. -- Simon.
Current thread:
- Re: router design (was Re: /24s run amuck), (continued)
- 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 haesu (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Steve Francis (Jan 13)
- 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 Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Patrick W . Gilmore (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Sean M . Doran (Jan 14)
- Re: /24s run amuck Patrick W . Gilmore (Jan 14)
- Re: /24s run amuck Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 14)
- Re: /24s run amuck Paul (Jan 14)