nanog mailing list archives
Re: /24's run amuck?
From: Danny McPherson <danny () ambernetworks com>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 15:07:10 -0700
Umm... because if you filter the /24s you will remove 58K of 95K, or some 61%. I'm *sure* that having a routing table 40% of the original size will help the next time you have a BGP flap.
Of course, some attentive customers MAY notice reachability issues with those 58K prefixes, but no big deal, at least the routing table is smaller. Heck, might as well go ahead and filter /23 and longer, that'll loss another ~10K, or better yet... :-) -danny
Current thread:
- Re: /24's run amuck?, (continued)
- Re: /24's run amuck? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)
- Re: /24's run amuck? Vijay Gill (Feb 24)
- Re: /24's run amuck? Randy Bush (Feb 24)
- Re: /24's run amuck? Kevin Oberman (Feb 24)
- Re: /24's run amuck? Christian Nielsen (Feb 24)
- Re: /24's run amuck? Richard A. Steenbergen (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] /24's run amuck? Hank Nussbacher (Feb 24)
- Re: /24's run amuck? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)
- Re: /24's run amuck? James Aldridge (Feb 24)
- Re: /24's run amuck? Josh Richards (Feb 24)
- Re: /24's run amuck? Basil Kruglov (Feb 24)
- Re: /24's run amuck? Hank Nussbacher (Feb 24)
- Re: /24's run amuck? William Allen Simpson (Feb 24)