nanog mailing list archives
Re: Partial vs Full tables
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 19:18:16 +0200
On 11/Jun/20 00:41, Job Snijders wrote:
Back to basics: as Ytti suggested earlier in the thread, it might be more sensible to generate your own default route based on a 'stable anchor prefix' coming from the ISP rather than accepting the default your ISP originates towards you.
This, for me, makes a bit more sense. Especially when the number of customers asking for default far outweighs those that don't, for a large network where designing this can be quite tricky. Mark.
Current thread:
- Re: Partial vs Full tables, (continued)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Saku Ytti (Jun 05)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Tore Anderson (Jun 05)
- RE: Partial vs Full tables Michael Hare via NANOG (Jun 05)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Saku Ytti (Jun 05)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables William Herrin (Jun 05)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Saku Ytti (Jun 05)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Chuck Anderson (Jun 05)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Mark Tinka (Jun 09)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Mark Tinka (Jun 09)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Job Snijders (Jun 10)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Mark Tinka (Jun 11)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Tore Anderson (Jun 05)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables William Herrin (Jun 05)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Yang Yu (Jun 05)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables William Herrin (Jun 05)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Ryan Woolley (Jun 07)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Saku Ytti (Jun 07)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Baldur Norddahl (Jun 08)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables William Herrin (Jun 08)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Nick Hilliard (Jun 08)
- Re: Partial vs Full tables Joe Greco (Jun 08)