more specific routes in today reality
Robert Kiessling Robert.Kiessling at de.easynet.net
Tue Oct 9 22:51:31 CEST 2001
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
[ lir-wg Archives ]