| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Hello Toshiyuki,I have read through the proposal and would like to raise one disadvantage that I believe to be worthy of discussion. At the current time many service providers are watching the size of the global routing table with interest as the memory requirements for holding the table approaches the constraints imposed by older equipment. One common proposal being discussed by providers wishing to increase the life of their equipment is to filter the global table and remove routes that appear to exist solely for traffic engineering purposes.
We had discussions with Cisco some time ago about implementing a feature to allow an SP to identify a prefix in the table that was covered by a larger aggregate prefix in the table. That feature was not developed by the vendor. The result is that many SP's are discussing filtering all /24's from their table. Without a larger aggregate block being advertised for the region it is feasible that under this proposal a legitimate allocation could easily be filtered by such a practice, resulting in the ISP becoming unreachable from the filtering SP.
I hope the proposer will take this point into consideration. Thanks David ... On 08/01/2008, at 5:07 PM, Toshiyuki Hosaka wrote:
Dear SIG members The proposal "Changing minimum IPv4 allocation size to /24" has beensent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG atAPNIC 25 in Taipei, Taiwan, 25-29 February 2008.
