We also have NAPs with no traffic, unless you count the Email about them,
of course.
But, given what I have seen of driving in your area, this is not the case
for the VA ZPE-7392 NAP, even with no customers.
randy
o renumber.
I would expect the world to see the following announcements.
A - I announcing a shorter prefix, A
B - P announcing a more specific for the /24 allocated to C
Is this not what we all expect?
Why I ask is we have provider P telling I that they should stop announcing A
and instead announce a bunch of prefixes around the /24.
Let's get the whole picture:
before the move:
P announces A'/L1 to <the world>
B announces A/L2 to P (where L2 > L1)
C announces B/24 to B
You have changed notation and possibly misunderstood what is happening. To
retain the original notation (Hints: Provider, ISP, Customer; P and I are
multihomed, C never is),
before the move:
P announces A'/L1 some block containing I's block, A
I announces A/L2 (where A is within A' & L2>L1) to P and other(s)
P and others announce A/L2 which they hear from I
B/24 is contained in A and is a static route allocated to C and only
known internally to I
There is no reason for P to announce anything more specific than A'/L1
to the rest of the world unless B is multihomed.
I (which I think you renamed B) is multihomed.
after the move [(if B is multihomed)]:
P announces A'/L1 to <the world>
B announces A/L2 to P (where L2 > L1, L2 < 24)
B announces A/L2 to <other provider O>
P announces A/L2 to <the world>
O announces A/L2 to <the world>
C announces B/24 to B
P announces B/24 to <the world>
P announces A'/L1 to <the world>
B announces A/L2 to P (where L2 > L1, L2 < 24)
C announces B/24 to B
This assumes C is also multi-homed, which is not the case. They merely
changed provider from I to P. The C also stands for Churn :-).
after the move (as it should be):
P announces A'/L1 some block containing I's block, A
I announces A/L2 (where A is within A' & L2>L1) to P and other(s)
P and others announce A/L2 which they hear from I
B/24 is contained in A and is a static route to C and known internally
to P (note change from I)
P should announce B/24
after then P claims that the following must occur:
P will not do the last above, announce B/24
I is being told to announce a *mess* of *pieces* of A (to 'get around'
B/24) to P and their other upstream(s) because P can not seem to
properly announce all of A', A, and B
P and others should announce the *many* *pieces* of A/L2 they hear
from I
P still announces A', which is now the only covering prefix for B/24,
thereby turning a /24 into many smallish announcements.
And, given prefix length filters around the net, guess who eats it, I and
I's customers who now have many pieces of A as opposed to A. And this
gives one a suspicion why P and C don't want B/24 to be announced. But why
should I, I's customers, and the rest of the net pay for this?
The last part is unfortunate.
I would call it seemingly inept (I am still trying to understand why P
can't just do the right thing), clearly asocial (though not holding a
candle to Telia, Electric Lightwave, and the other shining stars of Tony's
list, but I am not bing asked to be an accessory to those <bleep>s), and
sufficiently embarrassing that I have not named P (and no, it is not SL).
I am just trying to be sure this is indeed as stoopid as it appears to me
before making a bit (more) of a fuss.
Oh clueful ones at P, please explain where I am misunderstanding things as
usual.
randy