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

[Owen DeLong]

To some extent.  However, Aggregating the /22s within the larger block
may or may not produce useful results.  The CIDR report is a much
more useful tool for things to aggregate as it does the appropriate
analysis of what could be aggregated without operational impact.

Owen


--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:00 PM -0500 Mury <mury at goldengate.net> 
wrote:

>
> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>