nanog mailing list archives
Re: The Cidr Report
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:54:29 +0000 (GMT)
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Stephen J. Wilcox writes on 11/14/2003 7:16 AM:So anyway, was discussing the cidr report at the last nanog.. I was pointing out that deaggregation is discouraged by the naming and shaming and then someone else pointed out that this list has scarcely altered in months. So, what can we do as the operator community if this report isnt having the desired effect?Stop accepting /24 type routes?
Yeah maybe but what about where the RIRs have assigned independent /24 space.. or ISPs have subdelegated the IPs to a multihomed customer, was more thinking about where a bunch of routes originating from a single ASN can be aggregated rather than routing bloat in general. There are numerous such examples of people with eg a /19 announcing 32x /24 etc Steve
Current thread:
- The Cidr Report cidr-report (Nov 07)
- Re: The Cidr Report Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 07)
- Re: The Cidr Report william (Nov 07)
- Re: The Cidr Report Adam Debus (Nov 07)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- The Cidr Report cidr-report (Nov 14)
- Re: The Cidr Report Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 14)
- Re: The Cidr Report Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 14)
- Re: The Cidr Report Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 14)
- Re: The Cidr Report Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 14)
- Re: The Cidr Report Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 14)
- Re: The Cidr Report Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 14)
- Re: The Cidr Report Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 14)
- Re: The Cidr Report Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 14)
- Re: The Cidr Report Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 07)
- Re: The Cidr Report Joe Abley (Nov 14)