RE: The Cidr Report

["Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan () verisign com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
> Christopher L. Morrow
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 6:19 PM
> To: Michael Smith
> Cc: Warren Kumari, Ph.D, CCIE# 9190; Nanog
> Subject: Re: The Cidr Report
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Michael Smith wrote:
> > > From: "Warren Kumari, Ph.D, CCIE# 9190" <warren () kumari net>
> > > On Feb 13, 2005, at 2:31 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > >
> > > That and the "I have 1 circuit to $good_provider and 1 circuit to
> > > $bad_provider and the only way I can make them balance is 
> to split my
> > > space in half and announce more specifics out through 
> each provider"
> > > argument. I have also often seen people do this without 
> announcing the
> > > aggregate because   <some undefined bad thing> will 
> happen, usually
> > > justified with much hand-waving.  The people who do this 
> can usually
> > > not be reasoned with....
> >
> > So, say  I'm a provider that has received a /22 from UUNet 
> (just for example
> > Chris :-) ) and I now get another transit provider and 
> announce the /22
> > there.  So, I call UUNet and ask them to announce the /22 
> as a more specific
>
> Meaning you have PA space from UUNET, and you have BGP so you can
> multi-home... I'd expect you to know how to deaggregate yourself. You
> MIGHT even know how to send no-export on deaggregated 
> prefixes, or use the
> 1996 policies to influence preferences/prepends internal to 701, yes?

Is aggregation being covered in the Sunday BoF's?

[ hint, hint ]

-M<