nanog mailing list archives
Re: too many routes
From: David Paul Zimmerman <dpz () apple com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 15:49:31 -0700
Some people seem to view CIDR as an opportunity to subdivide their traditional 'Class B' networks. I would classify most of these announcements as 'mistakes' because they usually also announce the supernet, and have the same path.
I could see the intentional announcement of both if you've got diverse -- but ultimately equal -- paths into your B. So site X might advertise B.0/17 to normally receive the low half of the address range, site Y might advertise B.128/17 to normally receive the high half, and both sites would advertise B/16 so that if one site went down in that scenario, the other's B/16 advertisement would take over for the failed site's /17. In a normal case, though, you'd see the /16 and /17 with the same path. Does this pattern seem to apply to any of the announcements you see? dp
Current thread:
- Re: too many routes, (continued)
- Re: too many routes Dorian R. Kim (Sep 11)
- Re: too many routes Richard Irving (Sep 11)
- Hezbollah Alan Hannan (Sep 14)
- Re: Hezbollah Peter Kline (Sep 14)
- Re: Hezbollah Dorian R. Kim (Sep 14)
- Message not available
- Chanukah [was Re: Hezbollah] Kent W. England (Sep 16)
- Re: too many routes Alex.Bligh (Sep 12)