I have two thoughts in relation to this: 1) It's amazing how many threads end up ending in the (correct) summary that making an even minor global change to the way the internet works and/or is configured to enable some potentially useful feature isn't likely to happen.
2) I'd really like to be able to tag a BGP announcement with "only use this announcement as an absolute last resort" so I don't have to break my prefixes in half in those cases where I have a backup path that needs to only be used as a last resort. (Today each prefix I have to do this with results in 3 prefixes in the table where one would do). And yes. I know #2 is precluded from actually ever happening because of #1. The irony is not lost on me. On Tue, Jan 24, 2023, 7:54 PM John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: > It appears that Chris J. Ruschmann <ch...@scsalaska.net> said: > >-=-=-=-=-=- > >How do you plan on getting rid of all the filters that don’t accept > anything less than a /24? > > > >In all seriousness If I have these, I’d imagine everyone else does too. > > Right. Since the Internet has no settlements, there is no way to > persuade a network of whom you are not a customer to accept your > announcements if they don't want to, and even for the largest > networks, that is 99% of the other networks in the world. So no, > they're not going to accept your /25 no matter how deeply you believe > that they should. > > I'm kind of surprised that we haven't seen pushback against sloppily > disaggregated announcements. It is my impression that the route table > would be appreciably smaller if a few networks combined adjacent a > bunch of /24's into larger blocks. > > R's, > John >