On 15 Sep 2006, at 20:01, Gert Doering wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:58:38AM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote:
. o O(and i really wonder why there's still no rant about global routing table size increase by allowing routing issues to be PI-assignment relevant..) Because it doesn't make a difference. It just means "people will no longer lie to the RIPE hostmasters". What I am really worried about is people getting "lots and lots" of PI, and using multiple routing table slots, instead of getting a reasonable chunk of addresses (however named), and announcing only *one* route.
There is a real risk that networks due to router resource constraints, who already filter on shorter-than-/24 prefixes will have to cope with any routing table growth by filtering on /23, /22, etc. If we accept argument that we should, as a community, advocate no smaller PI assignments smaller than a /24 because of table filtration, what happens when the table grows to the size that operators start to filter on longer masks ? Andy