Re: routing table size

[Brian <bri () sonicboom org>]

the large quantity of /24 announcements is, I suspect, from comapnies just
large enough to want the benefits of multihoming.  You know, 2 t1s on a
small router, and stuff like that..

        Bri

On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:

> I've a feeling that the fact that everyone shares at least the view that a /24
> is minimum helps to contain the routing table. (even if there are still
> thousands of /24 announcements)
>
> If a significant number of providers starting accepting any prefix then the
> others would need to follow (else they'd get no transit traffic as it will
> always prefer the most specific). This really would lead to route explosion!
>
> I guess the counter argument is that you'd still get the same number of
> announcements at longer prefixes as there are only lots of /24s as its the
> current shortest (if you catch my drift here). But I doubt it is quite that
> straight forward and there would be a growth in announcements..
>
> Steve
>
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > > 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