On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 01:21:56PM +0200, Pascal Gloor wrote: > well, it seems some of you think filtering 30% of the routes is good... >
30% of what?? The filter I sent out contains only prefixes which never ever should show up in the public internet and thus would filter 0%. OTOH filtering 100% of RFC1918 is a good thing. > so, why dont you filter all the incomming routes(not peerings) and just > load-balance your outgoing traffic? > that will also work... but is that really what we want? > though it may work, this is already broken by design. > I'm > really interested to see the benefits of that... > Have a look at the NANOG archives. This thread pops up every few months (in the moment going on again). To put it in a nutshell: 1. while not only table size is a matter, the more prefixes you have the more flaps/withraws you see. And also the shorter a prefix the less you see flapping. And flapping is what really hurts. So less flapping/withdrwas means great mprovement in stabilty. 2. address space which is still unallocated or private address sapce or special address space should neither show up in the global routing table nor at any IXP. I guess that goes without saying. 3. When it comes to announcing more specifics you open up a religious war. So I'll stop to say more about that. Regards, Arnold -- Arnold Nipper / nIPper consulting mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hermann-Loens-Weg 15 Phone: +49 6224 9259 299 D-69207 Sandhausen Mobile: +49 172 2650 958 Germany Fax: +49 6224 9259 333 ---------------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/
