> > Daniel Karrenberg and few others talked about routing table > fragmentation and why so many entries are /24s. His data points to the > direction that a big fraction of the advertised /24s are from > de-aggregations of bigger allocations. Obviously there are many > reasonsfor this, including traffic engineering, multihoming, etc. > However, at > least for me it was news that one possible reason for doing this would > be to "protect" yourself against prefix hijacking. By advertising /24s > you reduce the likelihood of being hijacked with a more specific > route.If true, one action that needs to be taken to reduce routing > scalabilityproblem is to secure the system in some proper way. > Here are the > presentations: > http://rosie.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe- > 56/presentations/uploads/Monday/Plenary%2016:00/upl/Karrenberg-IPv4_Prefix_Lengths.LGnt.pdf > http://rosie.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe- > 56/presentations/uploads/Tuesday/Plenary%2014:00/upl/Karrenberg-Response_to_Prefix_Length_Question_from_Yesterday.xXAg.png > > Have people here actually seen such "protection" as a reason for > someoneto de-aggregate their prefixes?
There are also a lot of discussions about IPv4 address transfer in this RIPE meeting, and I wonder whether IP transfer will become the forthcoming factor driving the routing table growth. In order to maximize the utilization, the IPv4 addresses are better to be transfered in a wider scope. IP transfer among LIRs will make more and more PA addresses become PI addresses. Besides, in order to maximize the utilization of the valuable IP address resource, more and more small fragments of IP address will emerge in the global routing system. Best regards, Xiaohu XU -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
