Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations


> PS: Here's Sprint's sister company's current announcement of routes
> *originating* in its AS as I see them - I do hope Sprint takes the honest
> path if it does refuse to carry short announcements and not route all bar
> 4 of these nets, as well as a similar long list from AS1239 :slight_smile: I'm
> not convinced Sprint has the moral highground here....

Moral high ground does not interest me. Working networks
interest me.


As you note, AS 4000 is run by a different company, and you
shouldn't punish them just because I'm an arrogant asshole,
as I have no control over or involvement with their routing

(I'm not even sure that I'm entirely popular over there. :wink: )

However, yes, they are not aggregating as well as they could
be, and are announcing more-specific-routes that are
completely subsumed by aggregates.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. What I was saying is that there
are some of us who are tyring, within the boundaries set for us by RIPE,
to announce as few announcements as possible for the space we have (ends
up being /19s). There are other providers (including Sprint customers,
and sorry to single out GSL but it was an easy target) who aren't. Your
proposed filtering scheme gives providers like myself who are doing
everything we can a problem, but doesn't actually incentivise some
of the prime offenders (i.e. your customers) to do anything about the
problem. Thus saying you are interested in working networks doesn't
really cut any ice - there are many providers like us for whom no
amount of renumbering within the current RIPE guidelines is going
to give your routers less CPU load - all it will mean is the network
will work *less* well (or rather your net will work less well in
that it will give less connectivity). If you want to encourage people
to use the optimum numbering schemes, make it hurt for those
who can actually do something different first (i.e. anyone announcing
loads of /22, /23 /24 routes etc.).

Alex Bligh
Xara Networks.