On Oct 15, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody >> reads this any more. > > some read it. we are the frustrated ones.
Some read it. I think everyone on NANOG is frustrated (or not paying attention). I would suggest that you keep sending it, but I have no way to motivate you to do so other than to confirm I do read it. > no one seems to act on it. It is useful even just as data to show others, whether they act on that data or not. >> Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with >> this report? > > not clear, sad to say. > > i really think that the only way to reduce fragging is filtering. maybe > a bgp blackhole feed for frags for which there are covering prefixes? If history is any guide, this will not work. Someone will listen, and those who do not will lose customer (i.e. money). The Internet is a business, and therefore money talks. To date, no one has been able to prove to the bean counters that more prefixes means less profit. For instance, I spoke to someone at the conference whose company is spewing 1000s of prefixes they do not have to. That person said "well, FIB compression makes everything OK, so it doesn't matter, right?" (paraphrased). This is a company who tells others "you have to pay me to use my resources", yet feels absolutely no qualms about using other networks' resources for free. Hypocrisy is live & well on the Internet. (I know you are all shocked.) -- TTFN, patrick
