[c-nsp] smaller PI

[Jan Gregor]

Hi,

I guess I have just opened jac-in-the-box here :).
IMHO if Tier1 accept these prefixes it is ok. Hands up anyone who does
not have 0.0.0.0/0 in their network pointing to the upstream :). Could
be problem for smaller providers though.

Best regards,

Jan

On 30. 6. 2010 16:00, sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
>> Well, I just did a quick look up on the current routing table, and it
>> seems that there are quite a few /25 and /26 in there with quite long
>> as-paths, so it seems that this "nothing longer than /24" policy is not
>> strongly enforced.
> 
> I'd say that depends. We certainly enforce /24 at our borders, and have
> no plans to change that policy.
> 
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no
> _______________________________________________
> 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/


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20100630/126f0dfc/attachment.bin>