nanog mailing list archives

Re: nested prefixes in Internet


From: Jon Lewis <jlewis () lewis org>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:24:20 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016, Victor Sudakov wrote:

That's all correct from the point of view of the provider annoncing
the /19 route, and should be their risk.

My question was however from a different perspective. If AS333
receives a /19 from AS111 and a /24 from AS222 (where AS222's /24 is
nested within AS111's /19), what reason might AS333 have to ignore the /24?
AS333 is not concerned with possible monetary relations between AS111
and AS222.

RIB/FIB bloat. They may figure the least specific route is good enough for getting packets to the destination and assume anything more specific is just the usual pointless deaggregation so commonly seen on the Internet. Maybe they're putting off hardware upgrades required by a current-day unfiltered full table. Maybe there are features that stop working properly on their routers if they load several unfiltered full tables into the RIB.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)           |  I route
                             |  therefore you are
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________


Current thread: