nanog mailing list archives
Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU
From: "Dorian R. Kim" <dorian () blackrose org>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:21:15 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Steve Meuse wrote:
At 09:11 AM 10/8/97 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:I understand that it is not to everyone's benefit to filter on the /19 boundary like Sprint does but it seems to be prudent to adopt a /8 filter on most of the old class A space and a /16 filter on the old class B space. Other than the need to update these filters as the former class A space is subdivided I can see no major downside. Comments?What about the cable providers that have chunks of 24/8?
62/8, 63/8 and 64/8 are being assigned now. So you just relax the filters according to what's being assigned. -dorian
Current thread:
- UUNet Routing SNAFU prue (Oct 07)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU Michael Dillon (Oct 08)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU Dorian R. Kim (Oct 08)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU bmanning (Oct 08)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU Steve Meuse (Oct 08)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU Dorian R. Kim (Oct 08)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU Matt Ranney (Oct 08)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU Michael Dillon (Oct 08)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU Randy Bush (Oct 08)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU blast (Oct 08)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU blast (Oct 08)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU Phil Howard (Oct 08)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU Alec H. Peterson (Oct 08)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU Dorian R. Kim (Oct 08)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU Michael Dillon (Oct 08)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU Miquel van Smoorenburg (Oct 09)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU Mike Norris (Oct 09)
- Re: UUNet Routing SNAFU Michael Dillon (Oct 08)