Clean up your annoucements! Re: The Cidr Report

["John M. Brown" <jmbrown () ihighway net>]

Yup!    (I agree with both of your points! :)  )

We should allow /24's into the route system and it wouldn't be as big of
a deal if folks like AS701 and others cleaned up there routes.

Many rural providers are going to be multi-homing and thus we are going
to see an increase of /24 - /20 blocks.  

jmbrown () ihighway net

At 04:44 AM 9/13/98 -0400, you wrote:
> John M. Brown wrote:
> > Why should they, there is no reason for them to.  Personally I wonder what
> > would happen if we (the rest of us) started filtering on /19's or /20's :)
>
> Not to rehash, but there are legitimate reasons to advertise /24's.  I'd
> say that filtering at that level would be reasonable.  What bothers me
> is seeing certain networks advertising an aggregate along with all or
> most subnetworks.  Being flexible with one's downstreams is one thing,
> irresponsible adverts are another.
>
> > But then you take UUNET (Alternet) and for example 207.170.32.0 /19
> > is advertised as a /19 AND a stack of /24's  all with the same AS path
> > and from what I can tell no special routes, at least not via
nitrous.digex.net
> > But what do I know, I am a lonely little guy... :)
>
> My point exactly :-)
>
> -- 
>
> Brian Wallingford
> Network Operations Manager
> Meganet Communications, TCIx, Inc.