Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 09:56:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom <tom@light.sdf.com> To: Haesu <haesu@towardex.com> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multi-Homed Routing Message-ID: <20030902094522.H63339@light.sdf.com> In-Reply-To: <20030902143436.GA34200@scylla.towardex.com> References: <0AF1BBDF1218F14E9B4CCE414744E70F07DF30@exchange.wanglobal.net> <20030901213220.U6074@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030902143436.GA34200@scylla.towardex.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Haesu wrote: > Policy Proposal 2003-11 at ARIN may end up reducing from /20 to /22 for > multihomed organizations. > > But regardless, getting a /24 is not hard. Ask your upstream. Your upstream provider assigns you a /24, not your regional RIR. > Your RIR will only assign you on bigger needs, i.e. /20 as you said. Getting a portable /24 from your upstream is hard. Even, then you end likely end up annoucing a more specific prefix. > Get on route-views.oregon-ix.net and see to yourself how many /24's are > existing on internet routing table, not to mention how many of them are > from North America, especially USA. Yes, there are a lot of /24's in the routing table. That is legacy, and if you look closely, many of those are pretty stupid too. The policy today, is that only small prefixes should be announced in order to prevent route table bloat. In fact, I've seen a table on the ARIN site, which I can't find right now, which shows the minimum block size that ARIN has assigned in each /8. For instance, 204/8 the size was /24, and for 216/8, it was /20. A lot of networks use these rules to build a routing policy to block bogus routes. It keeps the legacy junk routes contained. > -hc > > -- > Sincerely, > Haesu C. > TowardEX Technologies, Inc. > WWW: http://www.towardex.com > E-mail: haesu@towardex.com > Cell: (978) 394-2867 Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030902094522.H63339>