On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 9:49 AM Baldur Norddahl <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> wrote: > Our peer is advertising a prefix for which they will not route > all addresses covered. Is that route not then a lie? Should > they not have exploded the prefix so they could avoid covering > the part of the prefix they will not accept traffic to? (ps: not arguing they > should!)
Hi Baldur, You do understand the consequence of the position you're taking? You're saying that when an ISP provides a /24 to a customer for multihoming, a common practice throughout the history of the commercial Internet, that ISP MUST also disaggregate the announcement for the supernet that /24 is a part of, exploding the size of the BGP table. If they don't, the overlapping announcement is a "lie" because they don't always have a route to the /24. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
