nanog mailing list archives
RE: The Cidr Report
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 16:38:29 -0800
Interestingly enough what Covad appears to be saying is: If we had a way to announce two things 1 - here are the advertisements for covering aggregates for Covad AND 2 - do not believe any more specifics for these address blocks, as they are NOT part of Covad's routing policy for these prefixes then we would not be seeing this unfortunate case of unauthorized route leakage being resolved in a way that seems to have unfortunate bgp implications in terms of more specifics appearing. So its an interesting question. How could Covad achieve a routing policy announcement of the form as stated in 2 above?
register the covering prefixes in the irr and folk should filter. folk who don't filter are welcome to the results. i encourage my competitors not to filter. randy
Current thread:
- Re: The Cidr Report, (continued)
- Re: The Cidr Report Daniel Roesen (Nov 12)
- Re: The Cidr Report Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 12)
- Re: The Cidr Report Simon Leinen (Nov 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report Geoff Huston (Nov 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report Hank Nussbacher (Nov 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report Geoff Huston (Nov 13)
- RE: The Cidr Report Roldan, Brad (Nov 12)
- RE: The Cidr Report Randy Bush (Nov 12)
- RE: The Cidr Report Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 12)
- Message not available
- RE: The Cidr Report Geoff Huston (Nov 13)
- RE: The Cidr Report Randy Bush (Nov 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report joshua sahala (Nov 13)