nanog mailing list archives
Re: The Cidr Report
From: Marc Binderberger <marc () sniff de>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:58:23 +0100
Hello Stephen,
any thoughts on how to fix it?
back to the "smallest allocation" per /8 that the RIRs have published and make it part of the MoU at the larger NAPs/exchange points.
at the large end i'm still without an explanation as to why large networks require so many prefixes - none of them seem to comment?
Commercial reasons? The traffic goes to the 32x/24 instead of the /19. Not to mention the BGP customer may go to another provider. You end up in discussions (if you get that chance at all) with your sales group and look like a dogmatic fool as "other companies do this".
Saving the world works best if the pain is no one's fault - at least "not my fault" ;-)
Regards, Marc -- Marc Binderberger <marc () sniff de>
Current thread:
- Re: The Cidr Report, (continued)
- Re: The Cidr Report Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report Michael Smith (Feb 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report Christopher L. Morrow (Feb 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report Warren Kumari, Ph.D, CCIE# 9190 (Feb 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report Philip Smith (Feb 12)
- Re: The Cidr Report Jerry Pasker (Feb 12)
- Re: The Cidr Report Aaron Hopkins (Feb 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report Patrick W Gilmore (Feb 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report Mark Prior (Feb 14)
- Re: The Cidr Report Marc Binderberger (Feb 11)
- RE: The Cidr Report Neil J. McRae (Feb 12)
- Re: The Cidr Report Hank Nussbacher (Feb 12)
- Re: The Cidr Report Philip Smith (Feb 12)
- Re: The Cidr Report Elmar K. Bins (Feb 14)
- Re: The Cidr Report Philip Smith (Feb 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report Hank Nussbacher (Feb 14)