route filtering policies (from "split b" thread)

Thanks for the URL... hm.. /20 and shorter only in 64/8?  That's a bit
strict, no?  We have different networks off our 64.34.128/18 block, which we
would like to announce in /21 and /22 blocks.  There's a good chance we
won't aggregate, since the networks might each have OC3 or OC12 links to the
Internet, but in some places as slow as T1 between the two networks, and I
wouldn't want to backhaul accross the T1.

Who should I contact at Verio to discuss losening the filtering policy?
Also, is there a Verio looking glass, so that I can test whether my routes
are visible?  If you'd like to test, try 64.37.160.1 - it's pingable, and
announced on 64.37.160.0/24.  For a longer prefix, pls try 64.37.128.5,
announced on 64.37.128.0/20

----
Dani Roisman
Sony Online Entertainment
droisman at station.sony.com
(310) 840-8753


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Doug Junkins [SMTP:junkins at orcasisland.verio.net]
> Sent:	Monday, June 05, 00 10:52 AM
> To:	Hostmaster, Verant
> Subject:	Re: route filtering policies (from "split b" thread)
> 
> See "http://info.us.bb.verio.net/routing.html#PeerFilter".
> 
> -Doug
> 
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 10:19:47AM -0700, Hostmaster, Verant wrote:
> > Hello.  I'm very interested in learning what are the route filtering
> > policies of the larger ISPs.  We're architecting our /18 now, and
> concerned
> > that some of our smaller announcements (/22 or perhaps as small as /24)
> > might not get carried throughout the entire Internet.  What I would
> > appreciate is that anyone on this list who restricts their learned
> routes to
> > prefixes shorter than /24s please let me know what your policies are.
> > 
> > Is there a standard that most adhere to?  I am reading about "rirs" in
> > Randy's below email.. what were rirs' allocation policies?
> > 
> > We've recently discovered one large ISP blocking /23s and /24s from
> 24.*.*.*
> > , since it is a classic class "A".  After a few days of grief, they
> finally
> > realized that since 24.*.*.* had been chopped up and given to cablemodem
> > providers, it has announcements that small, and they now will accept as
> > small as /24s coming from 24.*.*.*.
> > 
> > Our block is 64.37.128.0/18, and I'm concerned that some old filters
> that
> > were put in place long ago might harm us, in that 64.*.*.* only recently
> > started being issued by ARIN, and that technically it is a class "A"
> block.
> > 
> > ----
> > Dani D. Roisman
> > Verant Interactive
> > hostmaster at verant.com
> > (310) 840-8753
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:	Randy Bush [SMTP:rbush at bainbridge.verio.net]
> > > Sent:	Monday, June 05, 2000 7:38 AM
> > > To:	Tanya Hinman
> > > Cc:	arin-discuss at arin.net
> > > Subject:	RE: split b
> > > 
> > > > This allocation was a transfer/merger issue. What policy are you
> > > referring
> > > > to?
> > > 
> > > hi tanya (and john),
> > > 
> > > a number of isps have route filters based on the rirs' allocation
> > > policies.
> > > 166.49.0.0 is in classic b space, where allocations are on a /16
> boundary.
> > > our noc received a report of problems reaching the two /17s now being
> > > announced.  i am trying to determine if arin has changed its
> allocation
> > > policy in part of the classic b space, in which case we would change
> our
> > > filters.  i gather not.
> > > 
> > > randy