<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: more specific routes in today reality

  • To: Jan-Ahrent-Czmok < >
  • From: Robert Kiessling < >
  • Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:51:31 +0200 (MEST)
  • Cc: Gert Doering < >
Jan-Ahrent-Czmok writes:
 > I am not referring to 192.0.0.0/8, but in this case, we shall include an
 > option to return old swamp space to their respective registry and issue
 > address space from ripe.

So what are you refering to? Please name examples of your wild claim:

| This would dump the traffic to the owners of these blocks (e.g. AFAIK  
| xlink and RIPE) and SHOULD NOT be the correct way. 

In particular:

- In which way is XLink special so that by dropping /24 routes, they
  would receive non-customer traffic?

- RIPE announces exactly 193.0.0.0/21. So how would traffic magically
  end up at RIPE if you applied strict filters?

 > > so if I filter those, why should the traffic go to XLink?    Why should
 > > *any* traffic go to RIPE?  It will be just blackholed (or default-routed
 > > to one of my upstreams, if I happen to have a default-route).
 > 
 > "if" you have a default route. Default route if multi-homed is surely bad IMHO.

Nonsense again. Traffic will be blackholed only if you have *no*
default route.

Robert
  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>