On Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 04:21:54PM +1000, Dean Pemberton wrote:
Yeah - I noticed the same thing when I was putting together BGP route filters for Citylink. It's just a mess out there.
How to you create and manage this filter list? I'm looking at writing something to automate that here for various reasons, I know the are the radb tools, but they are really quite nasty and horrible. I'm more looking at doing some kind of RA in a box - just add water.
I like the idea of ``If you want more numbers than you have to give them all back and renumber.'' That way they are going to be forced to renumber at some stage (due to network expansion), or look at using NAT (also a good thing as far as address saving goes).
NAT has its merits, but hasn't been much of an option until recently as most commercial vendors ignored it. (Even though Linux and *BSD have had it since Noah was a boy). NAT doesn't work in all cases though, most NAT implementations don't do protocol translation so things like IRC, non-PASV ftp, real audio, etc. break. It is getting better though... the latest cisco IOS images have NAT (and PAT?) for even the low end routers such as the 1001 and 1003 models, which pretty much brings them in line with the 160x. (Alas, you need more flash and ram than these units come with by default, considerably more, so its not really a cheap solution).
I'm also forming an opinion that nothing smaller than a /24 should be able to be changed between providers. Anything smaller is easy to renumber. The reason that I'm thinking /24 and not a smaller prefix is that some organisations have multiple non-contiguous /24's allocated out of the NZGATE range rather than a contiguous smaller-prefix group.
I would agree... in fact, I would support even larger minimum network sizes than this. -Chris --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog