nanog mailing list archives
Re: /24s run amuck
From: Daniel Golding <dgolding () burtongroup com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:22:34 -0500
This was always a bad practice. One of the major networks to do this is Gone. Another had rewritten their policy to say something along the lines of "should advertise X amount of address space in aggregate or the equivalent". I don't think anyone still measures by prefixes alone. It was always the sign of cluelessness amongst those setting peering requirements. - Daniel Golding On 1/13/04 6:52 AM, "Patrick W.Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net> wrote:
On Jan 13, 2004, at 6:33 AM, Michael Hallgren wrote:and that a large driver is to make your network look larger than it is...What audience??Unfortunately, I've seen Peering Policies which require things like "Must announce a minimum of 5,000 prefixes". :(
Current thread:
- /24s run amuck Richard A Steenbergen (Jan 10)
- Re: /24s run amuck Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 13)
- RE: /24s run amuck Michael Hallgren (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Patrick W . Gilmore (Jan 13)
- RE: /24s run amuck Michael Hallgren (Jan 13)
- RE: /24s run amuck Vadim Antonov (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Patrick W . Gilmore (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck John Palmer (Jan 13)
- RE: /24s run amuck Michael Hallgren (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Daniel Golding (Jan 14)
- Re: /24s run amuck Patrick W . Gilmore (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Richard A Steenbergen (Jan 13)
- Message not available
- Re: router design (was Re: /24s run amuck) Richard A Steenbergen (Jan 13)
- Re: router design (was Re: /24s run amuck) Rafi Sadowsky (Jan 17)