nanog mailing list archives
Re: The Cidr Report
From: Tony Li <tli () juniper net>
Date: 17 Aug 1998 20:26:29 -0700
| AS762 118 81 37 31.4% WELLFLEET-ASOddly enough, they are announcing the aggregate *and* the specifics: brd1>sho ip bgp reg _762_ *> 192.32.0.0/16 207.106.96.5 0 4969 6461 1673 *> 192.32.2.0 207.106.96.5 0 4969 6461 1673 *> 192.32.3.0 207.106.96.5 0 4969 6461 1673 *> 192.32.4.0 207.106.96.5 0 4969 6461 1673 *> 192.32.6.0 207.106.96.5 0 4969 6461 1673
If one were paranoid, one might imagine that they are doing so intentionally to see how many Cisco routers they can tank through prefix overload. The problem with this is that a) they aren't also announcing the /17's, /18's, ... /25's and b) overloading a Cisco seems to mean that someone buys a bigger Cisco, thereby enhancing Cisco's revenue stream. One is then left with the theory that they are advertising more specifics for optimality, but haven't discovered communities yet. Exercise for the reader: If prefixes of length F and longer are filtered, and a domain has a prefix of length N, how many prefixes can they propagate into the backbone? How many before people start proxy aggregating them? Tony
Current thread:
- The Cidr Report Tony Bates (Aug 07)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: The Cidr Report Sean M. Doran (Aug 09)
- The Cidr Report Tony Bates (Aug 14)
- Re: The Cidr Report Sean M. Doran (Aug 14)
- Re: The Cidr Report alex (Aug 17)
- Re: The Cidr Report Tony Li (Aug 17)
- Re: The Cidr Report alex (Aug 17)
- Re: The Cidr Report Sean M. Doran (Aug 18)
- Re: The Cidr Report Erik Sherk (Aug 18)
- Re: The Cidr Report Sean M. Doran (Aug 19)
- The Cidr Report Tony Bates (Aug 21)
- The Cidr Report Tony Bates (Aug 28)