""Peter van Oene"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I'm not sure where to point you. All I can tell you is that it is > commonplace and likely will continue to be so. I'm currently not aware of > any routing issues that this behavior would induce. ""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I'm not sure I could point you to anything more specific than the > IDR, NANOG, and RIPE routing group archives. I hadn't noticed this > desire of the RSNG; the impression I have was the inconsistent routes > to be reported were those who were NOT registered in the IRR. Such > unregistered routes are far more likely to be due to error. > > RFC 1930, while a wonderful document certainly worth reading by any > CCIE candidate, is informational rather than standards-track.
Ahem. http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0110/lixia.html I know of many instances where this has been used to hijack traffic. It's not just a rumor, this is real. AS3847 used to participate in such overbearing rediculous practices (for fun and profit). Announcing inconsistent routes can also have many operational benefits. Most of the "why" is included in the NANOG presentation, but not necesarily the "how". -dre Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45278&t=45278 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
