Hi,
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 06:51:41PM +0100, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
> > > Bzzzt. Still wrong. There's nothing to stop anyone with an ARIN /20
> > > announcing smaller blocks.
> >
> > No. But there is nothing either that is going to force *me* to ever
> > increase my router's CPU and memory. If those people want to be reached,
> > they can announce the /20. If they do not want, they can announce it
> > as /32s (which would be ridiculous, but then, where is the border to
> > "ridiculous"?).
>
> I think this is pretty ridiculous, actually:
>
> *>i24.154.32.0/24 213.239.22.241 200 0 8918 701 7046 ?
> *>i24.154.33.0/24 213.239.22.241 200 0 8918 701 7046 ?
> *>i24.154.34.0/24 213.239.22.241 200 0 8918 701 7046 ?
> *>i24.154.35.0/24 213.239.22.241 200 0 8918 701 7046 ?
[ Lots of ugly things snipped... ]
Yes, these are like what I'm talking about. I cannot see a single reason
why it is "necessary" that those prefixes are visible on *my* routers,
and everybody elses in the whole world.
Even if 7046 has multiple links to 701, it would be possible to send
out a /20 *and* all the /24s, and tag the /24s as "do not export
elsewhere".
> Or this:
Same game, only a /19 this time...
> Plenty more among the current 105k routes...
Yes. Phil's statistics lists 61536 /24s as of last week. While he
doesn't list "how many of those are aggregateable", he *does* list the
following scary number:
"Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 73802"
this means: 73,000 prefixes are there that are more specific than what the
registries allocate, read: "that are likely to be aggregateable to a LOT
less".
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert.doering@physik.tu-muenchen.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:24 EDT