*** Resending note of 03/18/96 12:43
May I inject some list-relevant discussion to this cat-fight?
Fortunately, MCI was able to reconfigure our access lists at their
router to allow us to broadcast competing more specific routes for each
individual class C in the CIDR block. Thus (more or less) restoring IGC's
More specifics aren't competing. They take precedence. Sometimes it's
better to be silent and thought dumb...
I don't care to choose sides in this dispute.
But as a consequence of this dispute, the size of the standard
default-free route tables has grown as a result of the IGC/MCI
de-aggregation of routes. This is a bad thing, right?
Looking at IBM/Advantis's router at MAE-East, for example,
I see 205.198/16 from (AS3830), 205.198.244/22 from (AS3561 AS5799),
and 205.198.244/24 from (AS3561 AS5799). AS3830 == Net99,
AS3561 == MCI, and AS5799 == IGC.
Seems like the rest of the Internet is the long-term victim here...
-- Richard Woundy, (not speaking for) IBM