>> ...and the clue-less on the Internet is (still) less than 80%. It's more
>> like 20%. See http://mcvax.org/~jhma/routing for one example of how much
>> we could gain if we actually aggregated...
>
> This was hinted at in the peering debate, but wouldn't it help the cause
> of aggregation if
> ...and the clue-less on the Internet is (still) less than 80%. It's more
> like 20%. See http://mcvax.org/~jhma/routing for one example of how much we
> could gain if we actually aggregated...
This was hinted at in the peering debate, but wouldn't it help the cause
of aggregation if networks
> No.
> If they did, 80% of the internet would not be visible to them today.,
sure. and pigs fly.
I don't think that anyone have ever filtered on old class-based sizes. What
I know is that the most restrictive filters have been on RIR allocations
boundaries, and for old "non-returned" A:s a
In the referenced message, Roy said:
>
> In a recent discussion with a company that owns a /16 and has it broken
> down further, the statement was made that there are ISPs that filter
> routes at /16 in what was traditional class B space. The example cited
> was Verio. Verio web pages state th
No.
If they did, 80% of the internet would not be visible to them today.,
--Phil
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Roy
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 4:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Any people still with old filters?
In a recent
