William Herrin wrote: > On Dec 27, 2007 1:59 PM, Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> -Do not assign from PoP aggregates >> What do you mean with the above? If I understand the line correctly, >> then I disagree with it. > > Jeroen, > > If I remember right, this came from a discussion on the ARIN PPML > list. I don't clearly remember the discussion, so my apologies in > advance if I get some of it wrong. > > During discussion and analysis, allocation of addresses by POP was > found to be incompatible with a couple goals deemed more important. > The general consensus was that you should establish areas consisting > of multiple POPs and aggregate by area instead.
Area/PoP, that is a just a way to describe a route into a certain direction. I guess the wording should be changed to resolve the issue I have with it, eg "try to aggregate per area/PoP where possible to keep IGP routes low" > However, ARIN is not > in the business of recommending routing best practices so the > recommendation was narrowed to just "don't aggregate by POP" meaning > "don't fine-tune your aggregation all the way down to the POP level; > stop somewhere above it." Then put that in there, sounds more logical than the "Don't aggregate" line that is in there now. As for the rest of your mail, I would suggest putting it in the Wiki as an explanation and referencing it from the above point as it clarifies a number of things that people will not have to time to go lookup in the mailinglists. Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
