heh heh
No its all amateur time round here. :-)
Geoff
At 06:17 AM 13/11/2006, Scott Morris wrote:
It sounds like government work! When something doesn't work, they just make
numbers up! (Just be sure to create more plausible numbers next time!
(smirk))
er 12, 2006 12:15 PM
To: Fergie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: The Cidr Report
When my zebra BGP daemin looses its grip on life and dies a horrible death
the rest to the scripts wander into a strange twilight zone and make up
numbers
sorry
(I really need to code more defens
When my zebra BGP daemin looses its grip on life and dies a horrible
death the rest to the scripts wander into a strange twilight zone and
make up numbers
sorry
(I really need to code more defensively for this type of condition!)
geoff
At 04:56 AM 11/11/2006, Fergie wrote:
Indeed -- it
Indeed -- it apears to have flaked out a bit this (IETF) week. :-)
Date PrefixesCIDR Aggregated
04-11-06 199323 129829
05-11-06 199330 129854
06-11-06 199273 129854
07-11-06 -1077937252 129854
08-11-06
cidr-report writes:
> Recent Table History
> Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
> 03-11-06199409 129843
[...]
> 10-11-06 134555024 129854
Growth of the "global routing table" really picked up pace this week!
(But maybe I'm just hallucinating for having heard th
I was hoping the report would be cleaned up by now but it hasn't so sorry
for the multiple list post. The Bogon section is IMHO, broken.
Taking just the 1st line as an example:
Prefix Origin AS AS Description Unallocated block
3.0.0.0/8 AS80 GE-CRD - General Electric Company 0.0.0.0 - 3.0.
Jerry Pasker wrote:
Until there's deep shame, or real financial incentive to not being
listed as a member of the dirty 30, nothing is going to happen in terms
of aggregation.
I sometimes wonder if this list is seen as some sort of hit parade of
potential peers and if that is the case then perhap
Based on the experience with the CIDR Police project
(http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/cidr.html), you can encourge operators to
aggregate. My observation during that time was that operators:
-> Didn't know they had a problem.
-> Didn't know how to set up an aggregation policy
-> Had no one paying
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Hank Nussbacher
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 3:26 AM
> To: Philip Smith
> Cc: Nanog
> Subject: Re: The Cidr Report
>
>
>
> At 10:27 AM 14-02-05 +1000, Philip
Nachricht-
Von: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Monday, February 14, 2005 12:26 AM
An: Philip Smith
Cc: Nanog
Betreff: Re: The Cidr Report
At 10:27 AM 14-02-05 +1000, Philip Smith wrote:
Well said. At NANOG you get the clueful people cuz they at least knew to
come. That
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hank Nussbacher) wrote:
> Duh! No suprise there. ARIN just gives IP space and only offers some
> measly online training:
> http://www.arin.net/library/training/index.html
>
> RIPE on the other hand, has 3-6 course a month, throughout Europe:
> http://www.ripe.net/training/li
At 10:27 AM 14-02-05 +1000, Philip Smith wrote:
Well said. At NANOG you get the clueful people cuz they at least knew to
come. That is a start. But there are hundreds of ISPs out there who don't
have a clue. RIPE realized this without having to do a membership poll and
rightly so, goes and d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 13, 2005, at 6:19 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Michael Smith wrote:
From: "Warren Kumari, Ph.D, CCIE# 9190" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Feb 13, 2005, at 2:31 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
That and the "I have 1 circuit to $
On Feb 13, 2005, at 2:36 AM, Jerry Pasker wrote:
Pick the top 1 or two worst offenders every week, and automatically
dump them into a route distribution server would work in the same way
as the Team Cymru bogon server list. I bet THAT would get people to
scramble aggregate! Want to make a clea
Hannigan, Martin said the following on 14/02/2005 09:32:
Is aggregation being covered in the Sunday BoF's?
[ hint, hint ]
The BGP tutorials I've been doing on Sundays at NANOG all cover
aggregation - at least, I seem to end up talking about aggregation in
each one. Maybe I need to be more direct?
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Jerry Pasker wrote:
Until there's deep shame, or real financial incentive to not being listed as
a member of the dirty 30, nothing is going to happen in terms of aggregation.
[...]
Nothing is going to happen unless enough people (ASNs) take a simultaneous,
and UNITED stand,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Christopher L. Morrow
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 6:19 PM
> To: Michael Smith
> Cc: Warren Kumari, Ph.D, CCIE# 9190; Nanog
> Subject: Re: The Cidr Report
>
>
>
>
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Michael Smith wrote:
> > From: "Warren Kumari, Ph.D, CCIE# 9190" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:14:38 -0500
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: The Cidr Report
> >
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Michael Smith wrote:
> > From: "Warren Kumari, Ph.D, CCIE# 9190" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Feb 13, 2005, at 2:31 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> > That and the "I have 1 circuit to $good_provider and 1 circuit to
> > $bad_provider and the only way I can make them bala
> From: "Warren Kumari, Ph.D, CCIE# 9190" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:14:38 -0500
> To:
> Subject: Re: The Cidr Report
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2005, at 2:31 AM, Christopher L
--On 13 February 2005 01:36 -0600 Jerry Pasker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Until there's deep shame, or real financial incentive to not being
listed as a member of the dirty 30, nothing is going to happen in
terms of aggregation.
Unfortunately, an automated email going out to each of the dirty 30
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Justin Ryburn wrote:
> I have recently heard companies saying their reasoning for de-aggregation was
> 1) to protect against outages to their customer base when a more specific of
> their aggregate was announced somewhere else and 2) if they are getting DDOS
> attacked on a g
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Warren Kumari, Ph.D, CCIE# 9190 wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2005, at 2:31 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> > There are multiple reasons for deaggregation aside from 'dumb operator',
> > some are even 'valid' if you look at them from the protection standpoint.
>
> That and the
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christopher L. Morrow
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 2:30 AM
To: Alexander Koch
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: The Cidr Report
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Alexander Koch wrote:
> On Sun, 13 February 2005 07:31:16 +, Christopher L. Mor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 13, 2005, at 2:31 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Alexander Koch wrote:
On Sat, 12 February 2005 14:58:42 +, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...] - would you agree that most of
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Alexander Koch wrote:
> On Sun, 13 February 2005 07:31:16 +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> [..]
> > There are some business reasons to de-aggregate. Look at some outages
> > caused by 'routing problems' (someone leaked my /24's to their peers,
> > peers, peer and my tra
On Sun, 13 February 2005 07:31:16 +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
[..]
> There are some business reasons to de-aggregate. Look at some outages
> caused by 'routing problems' (someone leaked my /24's to their peers,
> peers, peer and my traffic got blackholed, because the public net only
> know
Until there's deep shame, or real financial incentive to not being
listed as a member of the dirty 30, nothing is going to happen in
terms of aggregation.
Unfortunately, an automated email going out to each of the dirty 30
weekly from the Cidr Report saying that their network again made the
li
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Alexander Koch wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 February 2005 14:58:42 +, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> > From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > [...] - would you agree that most of the poor deaggregating is not
> > intentional
> > ie that they're announcing their '16 cl
Hi Stephen,
Stephen J. Wilcox said the following on 13/02/2005 00:58:
that applies to medium and large providers
too reading this list - how often do they actually check what prefixes they are
sourcing, from my recent work at a couple of european IXes i had a number of
folks email me offlist as t
I split my Routing Analysis based on registry region so that the
constituents of each region know what is going on in their area.
As you know registries offer training if their membership ask for it.
APNIC and RIPE NCC membership seem to ask for training other than just
how to be an LIR.
But h
At 02:52 PM 2/12/2005, Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
Alexander Koch wrote:
I am not sure doing it the Swisscom way (they filter a lot)
is the way to go, yet I would be curious how many routes
they currently carry for a full route set. Ah, here it is:
->
route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg su | incl 3303
164
Alexander Koch wrote:
I am not sure doing it the Swisscom way (they filter a lot)
is the way to go, yet I would be curious how many routes
they currently carry for a full route set. Ah, here it is:
->
route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip bg su | incl 3303
164.128.32.11 4 3303 3351176 140593 74037481
On Sat, 12 February 2005 14:58:42 +, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] - would you agree that most of the poor deaggregating is not
> intentional
> ie that they're announcing their '16 class Cs' or historically had 2 /21s and
Think about som
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Jon Lewis wrote:
> I've personally dealt with a customer not too long ago who when we turned
> them up was announcing 2 /20s, a /21, a /22, and several /23s and /24s all
> deaggregated as /24s. Sprint and Qwest (their other upstreams at the
> time) apparently had no problem
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Philip Smith wrote:
> From my own Routing Report (due out in a couple of hours), a quick
> glance shows that the vast majority of the increase comes from ASNs
> assigned by ARIN (the ASNs from the other three registry regions show
> minimal increase in announcements).
Duh!
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> this is getting into what i was implying earlier.. you have wider experience
> than me - would you agree that most of the poor deaggregating is not
> intentional
> ie that they're announcing their '16 class Cs' or historically had 2 /21s and
> dont
Hi Philip,
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Philip Smith wrote:
> Quite often many service providers are de-aggregating without knowing it. They
> receive their /20 or whatever from the RIR, but they consider this to be 16
> Class Cs - I'm not joking - and announce them as such to the Internet. I spend
> a
Neil J. McRae said the following on 12/02/2005 21:06:
The issue we see is
bad aggregation - the root cause is bad practise and processes
that manifest into bad aggregation. I would argue that
networks with poor aggregation are also networks that will tend to
have more routeing issues and other
> Commercial reasons? The traffic goes to the 32x/24 instead of
> the /19.
If that's the reason why the table is growing so much then we
are all in deep deep trouble.
Mike,
> It seems to me they get paid to carry prefixes by their customers.
>
> And their peers listen to the prefixes because they make
> money by using those prefixes.
I'm sure this type of statement helps drug dealers to sleep at night! :-)
If the top 100 AS's de-aggregated and increased the
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Mike Leber wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Frotzler, Florian wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > Recent Table History
> > > > Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
> > > > 04-02-05151613 103143
> > > > 05-02-05
Hello Stephen,
any thoughts on how to fix it?
back to the "smallest allocation" per /8 that the RIRs have published
and make it part of the MoU at the larger NAPs/exchange points.
at the large end i'm still without an explanation as to why large
networks require so many prefixes - none of them s
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Frotzler, Florian wrote:
>
> >
> > > Recent Table History
> > > Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
> > > 04-02-05151613 103143
> > > 05-02-05152142 103736
> > > 06-02-05152231
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>
> > ~ +3000 routes in one week? Anyone else frightened by this?
>
> Only people who have stock in vendors welcome it. Be prepared
> for another huge glut of unnecessary outages, hardware and
> memory upgrades soon folks!
Actually, from a quick look at
I noticed a large jump in prefixes from 4323 this week as well.
-Chris
-Original Message-
From: Philip Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:00 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: The Cidr Report
Frotzler, Florian said the following on 11/02/2005 21:31
Frotzler, Florian said the following on 11/02/2005 21:31:
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
04-02-05151613 103143
05-02-05152142 103736
06-02-05152231 103721
07-02-05152353 103830
08-02-05152514
> any thoughts on how to fix it? my peers keep sending these to
> me and i'll even admit my customers do too. telling people
> its bad doesnt appear to have an effect, at the small end
> networks seem to collect /24s and announce them freely, at
> the large end i'm still without an explanation
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Frotzler, Florian wrote:
>
> > Recent Table History
> > Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
> > 04-02-05151613 103143
> > 05-02-05152142 103736
> > 06-02-05152231 103721
> > 07-02-05152353 103830
> >
> ~ +3000 routes in one week? Anyone else frightened by this?
Only people who have stock in vendors welcome it. Be prepared
for another huge glut of unnecessary outages, hardware and
memory upgrades soon folks!
FYI - at $job [AS8220] we have just completed a program
to fix the aggregation prob
> Recent Table History
> Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
> 04-02-05151613 103143
> 05-02-05152142 103736
> 06-02-05152231 103721
> 07-02-05152353 103830
> 08-02-05152514 103966
> 09-02-05153855
> Correct on 'knee' but for crying out loud, follow the pointy clicky
> references to the website. Of course there isn't going to be a curve
> in email [you want ascii plots? how 1980s], but the email quite
> clearly points you the way to the site where there is some analysis
> of the raw data.
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 01:08:39PM -0500, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2004, at 6:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [my attribution clipped -jzp]
> >>- this month, another knee was at 150k [Dec 4th] and similarly
> >> garbled results came out. Again, no response.
> >>...in this one year
On Dec 13, 2004, at 6:39 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- this month, another knee was at 150k [Dec 4th] and similarly
garbled results came out. Again, no response.
...in this one year we've seen the shape of the climb return to the
curve characterized by two years 99-01. Going for e? I'm not quit
More on BGP table size and the number of fragmentary
announcements in the Internet
http://www.tm.uka.de/idrws/2004/contributions2004/IDRWS2004--04--Huston_Geoff--Allocations_and_Advertisements.pdf
This is Geoff Huston's presentation at the Inter-Domain
Routing Workshop in May 2004. Slides for all
> - this month, another knee was at 150k [Dec 4th] and similarly
> garbled results came out. Again, no response.
> ...in this one year we've seen the shape of the climb return to the
> curve characterized by two years 99-01. Going for e? I'm not quite
> sure what the current point of the rep
[This was started last month. been a little busy. unsuprisingly I
only had to *add* an incident and it still works.]
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 02:47:30PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
[snip]
Yes it means what you think.
No, I don't see anyone giving a rat's patootie about aggregation.
I was starting
ge-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Christopher L. Morrow
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 7:31 PM
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The Cidr Report
>
>
>
>
> Of these listed 4 are cable c
On (13/11/04 16:38), Randy Bush wrote:
>
> register the covering prefixes in the irr and folk should filter.
> folk who don't filter are welcome to the results. i encourage my
> competitors not to filter.
>
it won't be your competitors who suffer though...it would be the networks
that someone
> Interestingly enough what Covad appears to be saying is:
>
> If we had a way to announce two things
>
> 1 - here are the advertisements for covering aggregates for Covad
>
> AND
>
> 2 - do not believe any more specifics for these address blocks, as they are
> NOT part of Covad's routing pol
Interestingly enough what Covad appears to be saying is:
If we had a way to announce two things
1 - here are the advertisements for covering aggregates for Covad
AND
2 - do not believe any more specifics for these address blocks, as they are
NOT part of Covad's routing policy for these prefixes
t
> e.g. is AS18566 the origin AS for 751 prefixes that could be
> collapsed to 6?
>
Sort of - from here it looks like they aren't actually announcing
the supernets.
The covering /162, /15 and /14 aggregates are being globally announced, and
the more specifics are being announced from the
At 09:47 AM 13/11/2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
>
> AS18566 7516 74599.2% CVAD Covad Communications
are these numbers what i think, but hope not, they are?
e.g. is AS18566 the origin AS for 751 prefixes that could be
coll
On Nov 13, 2004, at 10:18 AM, Roy wrote:
You have jumped to the conclusion that a customer of the cable company
is
not multi-homed. Bad assumption. I can tell you that there are
multihomed
customers behind what you would normally think of as a cable company.
You have assumed that they assumed.
At 02:47 PM 12-11-04 -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
>
> AS18566 7516 74599.2% CVAD Covad Communications
> AS4134 825 178 64778.4% CHINANET-BACKBONE
>No
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Christopher L. Morrow
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 7:31 PM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Cidr Report
Of these listed 4 are cable companies, is there something in the cable
modem networking that requires deaggregated
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 03:31:26AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
[snip]
> Of these listed 4 are cable companies, is there something in the cable
> modem networking that requires deaggregated routes beyond their borders?
No, for the general statement about 'cable modem networking'.
> Is the
Daniel Roesen writes:
> Well, it boils down that if you have enough customers, you seem to
> get away with about any antisocial behaviour on the net.
You don't need to have many customers, it's just more fun if you have
a larger space that you can deaggregate. Since everybody stopped
filtering y
> eh, since I singled out covad: (and I feel bad for it now)
> what about for COX? what about for UU (doh, thats me...or our tac or
> something, I'll look/ask)
thanks!
randy
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> >>> ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
> >>>
> >>> AS18566 7516 74599.2% CVAD Covad Communications
> >>> AS4134 825 178 64778.4% CHINANET-BACKBONE
> >>>
thanks brad :) atleast some answer was provided.
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Roldan, Brad wrote:
>
> There are no mistakes or excuses here. And there's definitely no
> renumbering going on.
>
> We were actually fully aggregated until an unfortunate incident this
> past May involving a distant service p
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:23:29PM -0800, Austin Schutz wrote:
> > > > ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
> > > >
> > > > AS18566 7516 74599.2% CVAD Covad Communications
> >
> > > are these numbers what i
geoff,
your proggy already knows what filter list(s) would keep us
from carrying the polluters' rubbish. any chance you could
generate the filter code for juniper, procket, and cisco so
automated router builds could fetch it with batch wget or ncftp
or whatever?
another cutie would be if whovev
>>> ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
>>>
>>> AS18566 7516 74599.2% CVAD Covad Communications
>>> AS4134 825 178 64778.4% CHINANET-BACKBONE
>>>No.31,Jin-rong Street
>>> AS4323
[snip]
> > ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
> >
> > AS18566 7516 74599.2% CVAD Covad
Communications
[snip]
> not to justify the expense, but perhaps covad is renumbering from one
> block to another? Looking at their advertisments I see lots of /23
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:23:29PM -0800, Austin Schutz wrote:
> > > ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
> > >
> > > AS18566 7516 74599.2% CVAD Covad Communications
>
> > are these numbers what i think, but hope not, they are?
> >
> > e.g. is AS1856
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 02:47:30PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
> >
> > AS18566 7516 74599.2% CVAD Covad Communications
> are these numbers what i think, but hope not, they are?
>
> e.g. is AS18566 the origin A
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
> >
> > AS18566 7516 74599.2% CVAD Covad Communications
> > AS4134 825 178 64778.4% CHINANET-BACKBONE
> >
> ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
>
> AS18566 7516 74599.2% CVAD Covad Communications
> AS4134 825 178 64778.4% CHINANET-BACKBONE
>No.31,Jin-rong Street
> AS4323 794
On Nov 5, 2004, at 6:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
[...]
05-11-04156315 103781
Well, we broke 150K prefixes - and without someone deaggregating the
classical B space. :) Impressive.
Remember when the 'Net was supposed
yeah, we(being savvis) are aware. this will all disappear when AS6347
is integrated to AS3561. AS3561 is, for the most part clean, and it
will stay that way. AS6347 will drop off the map in the coming months.
have patience. ;-)
thx,
mark
Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> This report has been generated at Fri Jun 4 21:43:44 2004 AEST.
> ...
> Recent Table History
> Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
> ...
> 03-06-04137774 96139
> 04-06-04137884 95196
ok, so in one day we saw the addition of 110
On Mar 19, 2004, at 9:00 AM, Mike Lewinski wrote:
Last June I promised here that AS13345 was working on the issues
preventing aggregation internally
Top 20 Net Decreased Routes per Originating AS
Prefixes Change ASnum AS Description
-36 91->55 A
Last June I promised here that AS13345 was working on the issues
preventing aggregation internally
Top 20 Net Decreased Routes per Originating AS
Prefixes Change ASnum AS Description
-36 91->55 AS13345 RKCI Rockynet.com, Inc
We're not done
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Stephen J. Wilcox writes on 11/14/2003 6:55 PM:
>
> > So who's job is it to clean this up - I dont think proxy aggregation is a good
> > idea as someone suggested, the only people in a position to fix this are the ISP
> > themselves, their up
Stephen J. Wilcox writes on 11/14/2003 6:55 PM:
So who's job is it to clean this up - I dont think proxy aggregation is a good
idea as someone suggested, the only people in a position to fix this are the ISP
themselves, their upstreams and their peers.
Thank you for making my point for me.
Nobo
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Stephen J. Wilcox writes on 11/14/2003 12:54 PM:
>
> > Yeah maybe but what about where the RIRs have assigned independent /24 space..
> > or ISPs have subdelegated the IPs to a multihomed customer, was more thinking
> > about where a bunch of
Stephen J. Wilcox writes on 11/14/2003 12:54 PM:
Yeah maybe but what about where the RIRs have assigned independent /24 space..
or ISPs have subdelegated the IPs to a multihomed customer, was more thinking
about where a bunch of routes originating from a single ASN can be aggregated
rather than
On 14 Nov 2003, at 14:41, McBurnett, Jim wrote:
just how bad is the auto-summarization at the upstream for the route
propagation
via BGP in the large routers anyway?
What auto-summarisation?
If you're talking about the cisco "auto-summary" command, then the
answer is "so bad that it's univers
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> > Stephen J. Wilcox writes on 11/14/2003 7:16 AM:
> >
> > > So anyway, was discussing the cidr report at the last
> nanog.. I was pointing out
> > > that deaggregation is discouraged by the naming and
> shaming and then someone
> >
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Stephen J. Wilcox writes on 11/14/2003 7:16 AM:
>
> > So anyway, was discussing the cidr report at the last nanog.. I was pointing out
> > that deaggregation is discouraged by the naming and shaming and then someone
> > else pointed out that
Stephen J. Wilcox writes on 11/14/2003 7:16 AM:
So anyway, was discussing the cidr report at the last nanog.. I was pointing out
that deaggregation is discouraged by the naming and shaming and then someone
else pointed out that this list has scarcely altered in months.
So, what can we do as the
So anyway, was discussing the cidr report at the last nanog.. I was pointing out
that deaggregation is discouraged by the naming and shaming and then someone
else pointed out that this list has scarcely altered in months.
So, what can we do as the operator community if this report isnt having t
On my active bogons list I'm also seeing
223.0.0.0/8 ## AS65333 : IANA-RSVD2 : Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
223.0.0.0 - 223.255.255.255 ## Bogon (unallocated) ip range
Would that be some kind of experiment?
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 22:0
> AS209 1097 532 56551.5% ASN-QWEST Qwest
It's worth pointing out that Qwest had such a huge jump this week
because they are moving from AS2908 to AS209 in their 14 state ILEC area.
Thanks,
Adam Debus
Linux Certified Professional, Linux Certified Administrator #447641
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 22:00:01 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
...
> Possible Bogus Routes
>
> 10.127.32.0/24 AS25186 TRANSIT-VPN-AS France Telecom Transpac's
> Transit VPN network
> 10.129.113.0/24 A
On (2003-09-26 22:00 +1000), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 192.88.99.0/24 AS3246 SONGNETWORKS Song Networks
RFC3068.
--
++ytti
Message-
From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 3:41 PM
To: Haesu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Cidr Report
At 01:00 PM 21-06-03 -0400, Haesu wrote:
>What is up with ASN11305 generating humongous loads of unaggregated /24's?
Sent them
On 6/21/03 4:43 PM, "Kris Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> They transit thro Qwest and Cogent. Perhaps its the
>> responsibility of folks
>> accepting the routes to sanity check and implement sensible policy?
>
> And the one who filters the customer first will lose revenue..
Unlikely, I
> They transit thro Qwest and Cogent. Perhaps its the
> responsibility of folks
> accepting the routes to sanity check and implement sensible policy?
And the one who filters the customer first will lose revenue..
Kris
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> >
> > At 01:00 PM 21-0
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
