Re: IP Filtering / CIDR Block Size / SprintLink

["Alex P. Rudnev" <alex () Relcom EU net>]

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, David Schwartz wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Alex P. Rudnev wrote:
>
> > It's not big difference for us if there is 1 or 10 big ISP who make 
> > filtering.
>
> > I must repeat - it's not important for the small ISP and small 
> > enterprises how many ISP over the world produce filtering - it's 
> > important if the filtering exist somewhere or not. 
>
>       Well, that's not quite true. If it's only one or two and they
> don't filter their own customers, an ISP can simply get a T1 to everyone
> who filters and keep their small blocks working.
It's amazing - if I'll recomend our small ISP bye 256K link Moscow/USA 
(Sprint), guess what they say.

But I am misunderstanded at all - first (in September or earlier) no one 
Registry over the world could not allocate for multi-home customer 
address space less than /19 (32 networks) and this prevented many 
enterprices or institutes from multihome connection to the Internet; just 
now (due to your answers) nobody filter our 195.xx or other RIPE's blocks 
except to /24 prefix; does it mean customers can get multihome access if 
they have /22 or /20 address space?

And why Spring (and AGIS) have changed their filtering policy? Was it my 
imagination or they have filtered 195.xx block to /19 prefixes?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -