[AfriNIC-rpd] Updated Version of the "IPv4 Soft Landing Policy" now Available Online

[James Blessing]

On 03/05/2011 14:54, McTim wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:09 PM, James Blessing<jblessing at llnw.com>  wrote:

>> The potential pollution of the routing table with /27s (which in most of the
>> rest of the world would be dropped) is also a problem that must addressed.
>> Whilst it may seem like a good idea to reduce the allocation size, many ISPs
>> filter at the /24 level (for various reasons) and this will cause severe
>> reach-ability issues.
>
> yes, for todays filters, but I agree with Douglas that IF ppl ONLY
> want a /27, we CAN give them that size prefix of it is not intended to
> be routed.

Why would you give someone address space if its not for routing? Giving 
a /27 to a customer out of your /24 and then recording that in the IRR 
is fine, but giving someone a /27 in isolation is completely pointless 
as they will have at least 2 entries in the global table (if not they 
shouldn't be getting a /27 independently anyway)

J
-- 
James Blessing
+44 7989 039 476
Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA
Limelight Networks