RE: Using unallocated address space

["Brett L. Hawn" <brett.hawn () rcn com>]

Here I go being silly again, but how about people take responsability for
their own networks and filter properly at their borders? All this talk of
how to enforce things is pretty meaningless when you have countless members
of NANOG itself half-assing their own networks and complaining about other
people's.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
> Sean Donelan
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 11:53 AM
> To: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: Using unallocated address space
>
>
>
> On Tue, 13 February 2001, Roy wrote:
> > It would seem to me that ARIN and its counterparts should get
> together and
> > provide a "blackhole" BGP feed (the NBL?)  where all packets
> destined for
> > unallocated, restricted, or private space go bye-bye.
>
> This isn't very effective because a longer, more specific prefix wins.  It
> would immediately inflate the route table to its maximum size if
> the registries
> announced every possible delegation.  It is similar to the
> problem with people
> hijacking addresses.  Unless you tie it to filters which ignore prefix
> announcements longer than the "authorized" allocation size.
> Which brings us
> back to the start of this thread.
>
> If AS1239 and others contributed and used something like the IRR to filter
> announcements, the problem is simplier.