more specific routes in today reality

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:13:05PM +0200, Jan-Ahrent-Czmok wrote:
> Some providers are multihomed
> but cannot cover the costs, even for a small lir.

If you want to be multihomed, the costs for routers & co. are far higher
than for being LIR.  If you can't afford being LIR, be single-homed.

> >> By also looking at the "old SWAMP" space we also should look more into this.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > This is quite easy.  Stop listening to it.
> 
> This would dump the traffic to the owners of these blocks (e.g. AFAIK 
> xlink and RIPE) and SHOULD NOT be the correct way.

Nonsense.  Nobody is announcing 192.0.0.0/8, or supernets of other's
networks - and what is in the RIPE database doesn't affect routing.

To show the first few things from 192/8:

*>i192.0.32.0       195.158.244.133               100      0 1755 1239 5676 226
i
*>i192.0.34.0       195.158.244.133               100      0 1755 1239 5676 226
i
* i192.0.36.0       195.206.66.61            3    100      0 3300 701 2914 20144
 i
*>i                 195.158.244.133               100      0 1755 1239 2914 2014
4 i
* i192.1.0.0/16     195.206.66.61            3    100      0 3300 701 1 i
*>i                 195.158.244.133               100      0 1755 1239 1 i
* i192.2.0.0/16     195.206.66.61            3    100      0 3300 701 1 i
*>i                 195.158.244.133               100      0 1755 1239 1 i

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).

Please do your homework about routing and BGP before selling people 
consulting about multihoming.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299