16 Mar
2012
16 Mar
'12
1:47 p.m.
I admit it was a few years ago, around the turn of the millennium, so
that things might have changed, but I had to change an experimental
network due to the fact that the US Navy had a border router that was
not CIDR capable.
Memory these days is so cheap so most border routers can hold the entire
routing table, even open source PC-routers.
But anyway, as we seem to agree, it is probably wise avoiding anything
less than /24
On 2012-03-16 19:10, Tim Pozar wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I have yet to find anything that is doing core BGP peering that is not CIDR capable. The
main reason for not doing anything less than a /24 is lack of memory and not filling up
the route table with a zillion prefixes. Sprint started this in the early days. I find
that few if any peers enforce this of late as you can see a bunch of prefixes that are
less than a /24 being announced. Check out routeviews.org to see.
That being said, in order to be good neighbors out there and follow conventions, we
should not be announcing anything less than a /24.
Tim
On Mar 16, 2012, at 10:36 AM, Bjorn Pehrson wrote: