nanog mailing list archives
Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2023 14:49:13 +0900
Lars Prehn wrote:
Accepting and globally redistributing all hyper-specifics increases the routing table size by >100K routes (according to what route collectors see).
That figure is guaranteed minimum but there should be 10 or 100 times more desire for hyper-specifics suppressed by the established (since early days with class C) practice. That multihomed sites are relying on the entire Internet for computation of the best ways to reach them is not healthy way of multihoming. Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP?, (continued)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? William Herrin (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Jon Lewis (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? William Herrin (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Jon Lewis (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Masataka Ohta (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Jon Lewis (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? William Herrin (Jan 24)
- RE: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Robert McKay (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? John Levine (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Forrest Christian (List Account) (Jan 24)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Lars Prehn (Jan 25)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Masataka Ohta (Jan 27)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? William Herrin (Jan 28)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Donald Eastlake (Jan 28)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? William Herrin (Jan 28)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? William Herrin (Jan 28)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Masataka Ohta (Jan 28)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? William Herrin (Jan 28)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? Masataka Ohta (Jan 28)
- Re: Smaller than a /24 for BGP? William Herrin (Jan 29)