[ppml] Clarification of 2002-3 and final opinion of 2003-15

[Mury]

Sure.  Same difference.  I should have said it that way.  The only reason
I put it my way (mistake) is because I just aggregated a bunch of overseas
stuff with static routes.  In addition, I had a customer running a 2501
that needed/wanted BGP, but couldn't handle the size of the table so we
static routed some of the more fragmented blocks into one big one.

The point is there is the ability to still control the size of the routing
tables by assigning/allocating smaller blocks within one particular larger
block.


On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Because hopefuly you set your filters to allow /20s from say 64/8 and
> similar prefixes and /22s from the prefix covering the micro-allocations
> so that all the legitimate routes get through, but, you can still ignore
> the /30s and /28s etc.
>
> Owen
>
>
> --On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 2:37 PM -0500 Mury <mury at goldengate.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> No!  It would be no more aggregatable than 64/8, or any other block
> >> we're assigning IP's from.  The reason to put it into one block is
> >> to make it possible for people to filter based on minimum allocation
> >> size easily.
> >
> > What's the difference between filtering those blocks out by minimum size
> > and having your default route take over, or putting a static route in for
> > that /8 block?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Mury
> >
>
>