Akamai does not do this. -- TTFN, patrick
> On May 13, 2015, at 15:42 , Jake Mertel <j...@nobistech.net> wrote: > > Chuck, > > Just throwing this out there as a possibility, I've seen similar issues > with other ISPs wherein the root cause was their BGP speaking routers using > a filter set published by (I'm almost certain) Cisco that, among other > things, blocks announcements of any prefix that is smaller then the minimum > prefix size allocated from an RIR for the prefix in question. If you look > at https://www.arin.net/knowledge/ip_blocks.html you will see that they now > say "All prefixes have the potential to have a /24 minimum size allocation > issued from them.", but this was not always the case. For example, looking > at the archive.org copy of that page from > https://web.archive.org/web/20140107021136/https://www.arin.net/knowledge/ip_blocks.html > on January 7, 2014, the smallest prefix they allocated from 162/8 was a > /22. I did some quick google'ing but was unable to find a copy of the > filter set in question. I poked a few of my colleagues and will let you > know if I'm able to find a copy for reference. > > --Jake > > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Chuck Church <chuckchu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Anyone from Akamai (or who might know), >> >> Having an issue with AS 20940 either not seeing or ignoring a /23 >> we're announcing, and following a /22 to another path. Other ISPs our >> upstream peers with see the /23. I didn't see a looking glass for Akamai >> to >> verify. Anyone from Akamai able to help? Prefix in question is >> 162.220.232.0/23. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> >>