[c-nsp] smaller PI

[tkapela at gmail.com]

...And several shops filter on per-/8 RIR allocation min + maxes, too! Bassically, a /24 isn't a safe, global assumption, unless from swamp space and/or a RIR portion specifically created for micro-allocations.

Take note of the cisco "isp ingress strcit" prefix list on the ftp site. Folks *are* using the examples linked from:

http://blogs.cisco.com/security/comments/surprise_all_your_prefix_are_belong_to_us/

-Tk

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Lewis <jlewis at lewis.org>
Sender: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:14:05 
To: Ziv Leyes<zivl at gilat.net>
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net<cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] smaller PI

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Ziv Leyes wrote:

> That's weird,  "PI" stands for "provider independent". How can one be independent with a non-routable IP range???
> Where did the "try to aggregate as much as possible" concept go to?

The RIRs guarantee uniqueness, not routability.  If the space just needs 
to be unique, it's not an issue.  If it needs to be unique and routed on 
the public internet, it seems a little silly for an RIR to allocate IPs 
they know will not be generally accepted by the internet.  AFAIK, 
filtering longer than /24 is pretty common practice.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jon Lewis                   |  I route
  Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
  Atlantic Net                |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/