nanog mailing list archives
Re: routing table size
From: David Schwartz <davids () webmaster com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 13:51:17 -0700
I've never suggested accepting /25's thru /32's. I'm wondering if the people saying I should not de-aggregage my /20 actually practice what they preach and filter /24's and don't globally announce /24's from their customers. -Ralph
What's wrong with announcing routes from your customers? Even /32s if you want. Only those people who choose to accept them will be affected by them and anyone who you have a BGP session with can insist you filter them out. Treating different situations as if they were the same is not practicing what you preach. DS
Current thread:
- routing table size Ralph Doncaster (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size Bradley Dunn (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size gg (Jul 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: routing table size Ralph Doncaster (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size David Schwartz (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size David Schwartz (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size Brian (Jul 29)
- Re: routing table size Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 29)
- Re: routing table size Paul Schultz (Jul 29)
- RE: routing table size Phil Rosenthal (Jul 29)
- RE: routing table size jnull (Jul 29)
- Re: routing table size David Schwartz (Jul 27)
- Re: routing table size Bradley Dunn (Jul 27)
- RE: routing table size Mark Radabaugh (Jul 29)
- Re: routing table size Tim Thorne (Jul 30)