nanog mailing list archives
Re: nested prefixes in Internet
From: Martin T <m4rtntns () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:50:39 +0300
Florian: as I told in my initial e-mail, ISP-B is multi-homed, i.e connected to ISP-A(who leases the /24 to ISP-B from their /19 block) and also to ISP-C. ISP-B wants to announce this /24 both to ISP-A and ISP-C. That's the reason why either solution 1 or 2 in my initial e-mail is needed. However, I would like to hear from Roy and Mel why do they prefer a third option where ISP A announces the /19 and the /24 while ISP B does just the /24. thanks, Martin On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Florian Weimer <fw () deneb enyo de> wrote:
* Martin T.:Florian:Are the autonomous systems for the /19 and /24 connected directly?Yes they are.Then deaggregation really isn't necessary at all.(1) can be better from B's perspective because it prevents certain routing table optimizations (due to the lack of the covering prefix)What kind of routing table optimizations are possible if covering /19 prefix is also present in global routing table?The /24 prefix could arguably be dropped and ignored for routing decisions.
Current thread:
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Martin T (Oct 05)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Florian Weimer (Oct 05)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Martin T (Oct 09)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Roy (Oct 10)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet joel jaeggli (Oct 10)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Roy (Oct 10)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Niels Bakker (Oct 10)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Baldur Norddahl (Oct 10)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Owen DeLong (Oct 10)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Baldur Norddahl (Oct 10)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Owen DeLong (Oct 11)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Martin T (Oct 19)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Owen DeLong (Oct 19)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Martin T (Oct 09)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Florian Weimer (Oct 05)