Network Engineer for a small ISP here. Our customers seem to be having connectivity issues with Take-Two Software, specifically NBA 2k20. Traceroute makes it to Akamai Prolexic before being dropped. Does anyone have contact info for someone at Take-Two?
Thanks,
Tim Nowaczyk
--
Timothy Nowaczyk | Senior Network Manager
office 703.554.6622 <tel:703.554.6622> | mobile 571.318.9434 <tel:571.318.9434>
<http://www.allpointsbroadband.com/>
NANOG,
Looking for anyone from XO or Legacy Concentric web hosting services (now VDMS). I have a mutual customer that is getting caught at some form of Web App firewall coming from a specific IP range.
Thank you!
James W. Breeden
Managing Partner
[logo_transparent_background]
Arenal Group: Arenal Consulting Group | Atheral | Ceteris Coin | Acilis Telecom | Pines Events and Media | BlueNinja
Corporate: PO Box 1063 | Smithville, TX 78957
Email: james(a)arenalgroup.co<mailto:james@arenalgroup.co> | office 512.360.0000 | www.arenalgroup.co<http://www.arenalgroup.co/>
In fact, Great Canon (GC) [55] is such an in-path system. But it
is known for intercepting a subset of traffic (based on protocol
type) only. What’s more, GC has been activated only twice in
history (the last one in 2015 [55]).
-----------------------------------
AT&T security says otherwise:
https://cybersecurity.att.com/blogs/labs-research/the-great-cannon-has-been…
The Great Cannon is a distributed denial of service tool (“DDoS”)
that operates by injecting malicious Javascript into pages served
from behind the Great Firewall."
"The Great Cannon was the subject of intense research after it was
used to disrupt access to the website Github.com in 2015. Little
has been seen of the Great Cannon since 2015. However, we’ve
recently observed new attacks..."
"On August 31, 2019, the Great Cannon initiated an attack
against a website (lihkg.com) used by members of the Hong
Kong democracy movement to plan protests."
scott
In fact, the three large carriers provide 98.5% of China’s total
transnational bandwidth. We observe this across all the three large
carriers, as well as one smaller carrier, CERNET(China Education and
Research Network).
Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:12 PM Ben Cannon <ben(a)6by7.net> wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2020, at 11:38 AM, Pengxiong Zhu <pzhu011(a)ucr.edu> wrote:
>
> Those are good insights. Our first guess is censorship too, and we
> discussed the possibilities of censorship side effects in Section 5.1
> *Censorship*.
>
> It’s the Government doing mandatory content filtering at the border.
>> Their hardware is either deliberately or accidentally poor-performing.
>>
>
> However, GFW operates as an on-path system [72], which only processes
> copies of existing packets without the ability to discard existing packets.
> Evidently, prior work has shown that GFW fails to inject RST packets during
> busy hours while the packets containing sensitive keywords are still
> delivered successfully [34]. However, we are unable to rule out the
> possibility that GFW has evolved to acquire the capability to discard
> packets.
>
> Maybe... I dunno.... get rid of the Great Firewall of China?
>
>
> We designed a small experiment to locate the hops with GFW presence, and
> then try to match them with the bottleneck hops. We found only in 34.45% of
> the cases, the GFW hops match the bottleneck hops.
>
> My guess is that it’s all the DDoS traffic coming from China saturating
>> the links.
>>
>
> In fact, Great Canon (GC) [55] is such an in-path system. But it is known
> for intercepting a subset of traffic (based on protocol type) only. What’s
> more, GC has been activated only twice in history (the last one in 2015
> [55]). However, it might be the case that the in-path capability is
> re-purposed to perform general traffic throttling. If that is the case,
> they have done a good job because the throttling resembles natural
> congestion from the loss rate and latency point of view.
>
>
> I believe this is what’s happening, and I believe they are rate-limiting
> and causing actual congestion, as opposed to simulating it. The losses
> would be real, actual saturation, on simply rate-limited flows. Unclear if
> this is being done on a per-flow basis or per-source or what. You might be
> able to find out. I’m curious if you see this across all carriers or only
> the larger ones?
>
> -Ben.
>
> The asymmetric performance between downstream and upstream traffic can be
> explained by the natural imbalance of transnational traffic (where the
> upstream traffic from China to outside is not significant enough to
> throttle).
>
>
> Best,
> Pengxiong Zhu
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of California, Riverside
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:11 AM Compton, Rich A <Rich.Compton(a)charter.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My guess is that it’s all the DDoS traffic coming from China saturating
>> the links.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *NANOG Email List <nanog-bounces(a)nanog.org> on behalf of
>> Pengxiong Zhu <pzhu011(a)ucr.edu>
>> *Date: *Monday, March 2, 2020 at 8:58 AM
>> *To: *NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org>
>> *Cc: *Zhiyun Qian <zhiyunq(a)cs.ucr.edu>
>> *Subject: *China’s Slow Transnational Network
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> We are a group of researchers at University of California, Riverside who
>> have been working on measuring the transnational network performance (and
>> have previously asked questions on the mailing list). Our work has now led
>> to a publication in Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
>>
>> interesting findings.
>>
>>
>>
>> We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor performance
>> when accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is often persistently
>>
>> low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other countries
>> we measured including both developed and developing, China's transnational
>> network performance is among the worst (comparable and even worse than some
>> African countries).
>>
>>
>>
>> Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign nodes
>> over more than 53 days, our result shows when data transferring from
>> foreign nodes to China, 79% of measured connections has throughput lower
>> than the 1Mbps, sometimes it is even much lower. The slow speed occurs only
>> during certain times and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion
>> (irrespective of network protocol and content), please see the following
>> figure. The diurnal pattern is fairly stable, 80% to 95% of the
>> transnational connections have a less than 3 hours standard deviation of
>> the slowdown hours each day over the entire duration. However, the speed
>> rises up from 1Mbps to 4Mbps in about half an hour.
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: blob:null/71cf5a6a-3841-41ce-a1d4-207b59182189]
>>
>>
>>
>> We are able to confirm that high packet loss rates and delays are
>> incurred in the foreign-to-China direction only. Moreover, the end-to-end
>> loss rate could rise up to 40% during the slow period, with ~15% on average.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are a few things noteworthy regarding the phenomenon. First of all,
>> all traffic types are treated equally, HTTP(S), VPN, etc., which means it
>> is discriminating or differentiating any specific kinds of traffic. Second,
>> we found for 71% of connections, the bottleneck is located inside China
>> (the second hop after entering China or further), which means that it is
>> mostly unrelated to the transnational link itself (e.g., submarine cable).
>> Yet we never observed any such domestic traffic slowdowns within China.
>>
>> Assuming this is due to congestion, it is unclear why the infrastructures
>> within China that handles transnational traffic is not even capable to
>> handle the capacity of transnational links, e.g., submarine cable, which
>> maybe the most expensive investment themselves.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the link to our paper:
>>
>> https://www.cs.ucr.edu/~zhiyunq/pub/sigmetrics20_slowdown.pdf
>>
>>
>> We appreciate any comments or feedback.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Pengxiong Zhu
>> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
>> University of California, Riverside
>> The contents of this e-mail message and
>> any attachments are intended solely for the
>> addressee(s) and may contain confidential
>> and/or legally privileged information. If you
>> are not the intended recipient of this message
>> or if this message has been addressed to you
>> in error, please immediately alert the sender
>> by reply e-mail and then delete this message
>> and any attachments. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, you are notified that
>> any use, dissemination, distribution, copying,
>> or storage of this message or any attachment
>> is strictly prohibited.
>>
>
>
Those are good insights. Our first guess is censorship too, and we
discussed the possibilities of censorship side effects in Section 5.1
*Censorship*.
My guess is that it’s all the DDoS traffic coming from China saturating the
> links.
>
In fact, Great Canon (GC) [55] is such an in-path system. But it is known
for intercepting a subset of traffic (based on protocol type) only. What’s
more, GC has been activated only twice in history (the last one in 2015
[55]). However, it might be the case that the in-path capability is
re-purposed to perform general traffic throttling. If that is the case,
they have done a good job because the throttling resembles natural
congestion from the loss rate and latency point of view. The asymmetric
performance between downstream and upstream traffic can be explained by the
natural imbalance of transnational traffic (where the upstream traffic from
China to outside is not significant enough to throttle).
Maybe... I dunno.... get rid of the Great Firewall of China?
>
What do you mean? Do you mean the slow traffic is to bypass the GFW or the
slow traffic is caused by GFW?
Best,
Pengxiong Zhu
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University of California, Riverside
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 11:38 AM Pengxiong Zhu <pzhu011(a)ucr.edu> wrote:
> Those are good insights. Our first guess is censorship too, and we
> discussed the possibilities of censorship side effects in Section 5.1
> *Censorship*.
>
> It’s the Government doing mandatory content filtering at the border.
>> Their hardware is either deliberately or accidentally poor-performing.
>>
>
> However, GFW operates as an on-path system [72], which only processes
> copies of existing packets without the ability to discard existing packets.
> Evidently, prior work has shown that GFW fails to inject RST packets during
> busy hours while the packets containing sensitive keywords are still
> delivered successfully [34]. However, we are unable to rule out the
> possibility that GFW has evolved to acquire the capability to discard
> packets.
>
> Maybe... I dunno.... get rid of the Great Firewall of China?
>
>
> We designed a small experiment to locate the hops with GFW presence, and
> then try to match them with the bottleneck hops. We found only in 34.45% of
> the cases, the GFW hops match the bottleneck hops.
>
> My guess is that it’s all the DDoS traffic coming from China saturating
>> the links.
>>
>
> In fact, Great Canon (GC) [55] is such an in-path system. But it is known
> for intercepting a subset of traffic (based on protocol type) only. What’s
> more, GC has been activated only twice in history (the last one in 2015
> [55]). However, it might be the case that the in-path capability is
> re-purposed to perform general traffic throttling. If that is the case,
> they have done a good job because the throttling resembles natural
> congestion from the loss rate and latency point of view. The asymmetric
> performance between downstream and upstream traffic can be explained by the
> natural imbalance of transnational traffic (where the upstream traffic from
> China to outside is not significant enough to throttle).
>
>
> Best,
> Pengxiong Zhu
> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of California, Riverside
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:11 AM Compton, Rich A <Rich.Compton(a)charter.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My guess is that it’s all the DDoS traffic coming from China saturating
>> the links.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *NANOG Email List <nanog-bounces(a)nanog.org> on behalf of
>> Pengxiong Zhu <pzhu011(a)ucr.edu>
>> *Date: *Monday, March 2, 2020 at 8:58 AM
>> *To: *NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org>
>> *Cc: *Zhiyun Qian <zhiyunq(a)cs.ucr.edu>
>> *Subject: *China’s Slow Transnational Network
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> We are a group of researchers at University of California, Riverside who
>> have been working on measuring the transnational network performance (and
>> have previously asked questions on the mailing list). Our work has now led
>> to a publication in Sigmetrics 2020 and we are eager to share some
>>
>> interesting findings.
>>
>>
>>
>> We find China's transnational networks have extremely poor performance
>> when accessing foreign sites, where the throughput is often persistently
>>
>> low (e.g., for the majority of the daytime). Compared to other countries
>> we measured including both developed and developing, China's transnational
>> network performance is among the worst (comparable and even worse than some
>> African countries).
>>
>>
>>
>> Measuring from more than 400 pairs of mainland China and foreign nodes
>> over more than 53 days, our result shows when data transferring from
>> foreign nodes to China, 79% of measured connections has throughput lower
>> than the 1Mbps, sometimes it is even much lower. The slow speed occurs only
>> during certain times and forms a diurnal pattern that resembles congestion
>> (irrespective of network protocol and content), please see the following
>> figure. The diurnal pattern is fairly stable, 80% to 95% of the
>> transnational connections have a less than 3 hours standard deviation of
>> the slowdown hours each day over the entire duration. However, the speed
>> rises up from 1Mbps to 4Mbps in about half an hour.
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: blob:null/71cf5a6a-3841-41ce-a1d4-207b59182189]
>>
>>
>>
>> We are able to confirm that high packet loss rates and delays are
>> incurred in the foreign-to-China direction only. Moreover, the end-to-end
>> loss rate could rise up to 40% during the slow period, with ~15% on average.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are a few things noteworthy regarding the phenomenon. First of all,
>> all traffic types are treated equally, HTTP(S), VPN, etc., which means it
>> is discriminating or differentiating any specific kinds of traffic. Second,
>> we found for 71% of connections, the bottleneck is located inside China
>> (the second hop after entering China or further), which means that it is
>> mostly unrelated to the transnational link itself (e.g., submarine cable).
>> Yet we never observed any such domestic traffic slowdowns within China.
>>
>> Assuming this is due to congestion, it is unclear why the infrastructures
>> within China that handles transnational traffic is not even capable to
>> handle the capacity of transnational links, e.g., submarine cable, which
>> maybe the most expensive investment themselves.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is the link to our paper:
>>
>> https://www.cs.ucr.edu/~zhiyunq/pub/sigmetrics20_slowdown.pdf
>>
>>
>> We appreciate any comments or feedback.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Pengxiong Zhu
>> Department of Computer Science and Engineering
>> University of California, Riverside
>> The contents of this e-mail message and
>> any attachments are intended solely for the
>> addressee(s) and may contain confidential
>> and/or legally privileged information. If you
>> are not the intended recipient of this message
>> or if this message has been addressed to you
>> in error, please immediately alert the sender
>> by reply e-mail and then delete this message
>> and any attachments. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, you are notified that
>> any use, dissemination, distribution, copying,
>> or storage of this message or any attachment
>> is strictly prohibited.
>>
>
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net
For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net.
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz(a)gmail.com>.
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 29 Feb, 2020
Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/
Analysis Summary
----------------
BGP routing table entries examined: 797725
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 303605
Deaggregation factor: 2.63
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 389949
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 67220
Prefixes per ASN: 11.87
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 57747
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 24242
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 9473
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 285
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.4
Max AS path length visible: 34
Max AS path prepend of ASN (206156) 26
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 1179
Number of instances of unregistered ASNs: 1179
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 30732
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 25319
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 116316
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 16
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 1
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 1110
Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2854110848
Equivalent to 170 /8s, 30 /16s and 70 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced: 77.1
Percentage of allocated address space announced: 77.1
Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 99.4
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 268248
APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-----------------------------
Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 210878
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 61543
APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.43
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 204131
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 85102
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 10367
APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 19.69
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 2848
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1547
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.6
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 26
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 5434
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 768208896
Equivalent to 45 /8s, 201 /16s and 240 /24s
APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-141625
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8,
49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
222/8, 223/8,
ARIN Region Analysis Summary
----------------------------
Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 234135
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 107778
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.17
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 231796
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 117534
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18411
ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 12.59
ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 6757
ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1907
Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.9
Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 23
Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 3175
Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1079092736
Equivalent to 64 /8s, 81 /16s and 166 /24s
ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106
(pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153
3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466
7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407
18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591,
26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791
35840-36863, 39936-40959, 46080-47103
53248-55295, 62464-63487, 64198-64296, 393216-399260
ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8,
12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8,
20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8,
29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8,
40/8, 44/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8,
54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8,
66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8,
73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8,
99/8, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 128/8, 129/8,
130/8, 131/8, 132/8, 134/8, 135/8, 136/8, 137/8,
138/8, 139/8, 140/8, 142/8, 143/8, 144/8, 146/8,
147/8, 148/8, 149/8, 152/8, 155/8, 156/8, 157/8,
158/8, 159/8, 160/8, 161/8, 162/8, 164/8, 165/8,
166/8, 167/8, 168/8, 169/8, 170/8, 172/8, 173/8,
174/8, 184/8, 192/8, 198/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8,
206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8,
RIPE Region Analysis Summary
----------------------------
Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 226124
Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 104938
RIPE Deaggregation factor: 2.15
Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 222843
Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 130746
RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 26900
RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 8.28
RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 11720
RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3821
Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.5
Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 34
Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 8962
Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 724185472
Equivalent to 43 /8s, 42 /16s and 49 /24s
RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614
(pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631
6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383
20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695
30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935
40960-45055, 47104-52223, 56320-58367
59392-61439, 61952-62463, 64396-64495
196608-210331
RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8,
62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8,
83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8,
90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 109/8,
141/8, 145/8, 151/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 188/8,
193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8,
LACNIC Region Analysis Summary
------------------------------
Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 103621
Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 24117
LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.30
Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 104886
Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 45624
LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 9509
LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 11.03
LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 2433
LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1785
Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 5.2
Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 31
Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 7081
Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 174283776
Equivalent to 10 /8s, 99 /16s and 92 /24s
LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247,
61440-61951, 64099-64197, 262144-270748 + ERX transfers
LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8,
191/8, 200/8, 201/8,
AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary
-------------------------------
Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 21787
Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 4495
AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.85
Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 32959
Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 9958
AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1376
AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 23.95
AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 484
AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 271
Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 5.0
Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 22
Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 667
Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 107771904
Equivalent to 6 /8s, 108 /16s and 120 /24s
AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers
AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 45/8, 102/8, 105/8, 154/8, 196/8, 197/8,
APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary
----------------------------------------
ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description
7545 5305 666 617 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU
4538 4623 4192 73 ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Rese
7552 3332 1331 24 VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Group, VN
45899 3135 1797 104 VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp, VN
7713 2701 831 493 TELKOMNET-AS-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indon
9808 2624 9043 62 CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile Communication
4766 2288 11102 561 KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom, KR
9498 2244 434 220 BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd., IN
4755 2140 441 193 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerl
9394 2077 4898 24 CTTNET China TieTong Telecommunications
Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC
ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary
---------------------------------------
ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description
7155 4034 280 28 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE, US
11492 3998 266 665 CABLEONE, US
16509 3868 7816 1701 AMAZON-02, US
22773 3533 2971 151 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC, US
6327 3376 1324 92 SHAW, CA
16625 2991 1570 2140 AKAMAI-AS, US
209 2372 5075 531 CENTURYLINK-US-LEGACY-QWEST, US
30036 2311 360 114 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS, US
5650 2290 2941 1631 FRONTIER-FRTR, US
20115 2141 2795 519 CHARTER-20115, US
Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN
RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary
---------------------------------------
ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description
12479 5925 1599 131 UNI2-AS, ES
31334 4040 484 13 KABELDEUTSCHLAND-AS, DE
39891 3776 203 20 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA
8551 3292 379 45 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Interne
20940 2907 465 1995 AKAMAI-ASN1, US
12389 2480 2248 731 ROSTELECOM-AS, RU
34984 2092 350 560 TELLCOM-AS, TR
9009 2060 217 1097 M247, GB
9121 1922 1691 18 TTNET, TR
13188 1604 100 47 TRIOLAN, UA
Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE
LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary
-----------------------------------------
ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description
8151 6266 3291 596 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX
10620 3361 534 446 Telmex Colombia S.A., CO
11830 2672 369 63 Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad
6503 1673 327 388 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V., MX
7303 1557 1030 265 Telecom Argentina S.A., AR
28573 1329 2236 189 CLARO S.A., BR
13999 1231 502 288 Mega Cable, S.A. de C.V., MX
6147 1126 379 39 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A., PE
3816 1086 563 137 COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S.A. ESP, C
11172 955 112 69 Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V., MX
Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC
AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary
------------------------------------------
ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description
24863 1499 393 22 LINKdotNET-AS, EG
24835 1099 566 24 RAYA-AS, EG
36992 1057 1535 74 ETISALAT-MISR, EG
36903 875 452 97 MT-MPLS, MA
6713 599 1863 34 IAM-AS, MA
29571 557 68 11 ORANGE-COTE-IVOIRE, CI
37342 482 32 1 MOVITEL, MZ
36935 387 522 40 Vodafone-, EG
15399 374 45 10 WANANCHI-, KE
23889 373 231 15 MauritiusTelecom, MU
Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC
Global Per AS prefix count summary
----------------------------------
ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description
8151 6266 3291 596 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX
12479 5925 1599 131 UNI2-AS, ES
7545 5305 666 617 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU
4538 4623 4192 73 ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Rese
31334 4040 484 13 KABELDEUTSCHLAND-AS, DE
7155 4034 280 28 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE, US
11492 3998 266 665 CABLEONE, US
16509 3868 7816 1701 AMAZON-02, US
39891 3776 203 20 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA
22773 3533 2971 151 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC, US
Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet
Global Per AS Maximum Aggregation summary
-----------------------------------------
ASN No of nets Net Savings Description
12479 5925 5794 UNI2-AS, ES
7545 5305 4688 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU
4538 4623 4550 ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Research Net
31334 4040 4027 KABELDEUTSCHLAND-AS, DE
7155 4034 4006 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE, US
39891 3776 3756 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA
22773 3533 3382 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC, US
11492 3998 3333 CABLEONE, US
7552 3332 3308 VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Group, VN
6327 3376 3284 SHAW, CA
Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet
List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global)
-----------------------------------------
Bad AS Designation Net Originated Transit AS Transit AS Name
62828 UNALLOCATED 8.21.130.0/24 3356 LEVEL3, US
393266 UNALLOCATED 8.23.52.0/24 174 COGENT-174, US
62485 UNALLOCATED 8.23.229.0/24 3356 LEVEL3, US
32985 UNALLOCATED 8.28.31.0/24 3356 LEVEL3, US
394936 UNALLOCATED 8.33.224.0/24 174 COGENT-174, US
27205 UNALLOCATED 8.38.16.0/21 6461 ZAYO-6461, US
27205 UNALLOCATED 8.38.16.0/22 32787 PROLEXIC-TECHNOLOGIES-DDOS-M
27205 UNALLOCATED 8.38.20.0/22 32787 PROLEXIC-TECHNOLOGIES-DDOS-M
14109 UNALLOCATED 8.38.252.0/24 3356 LEVEL3, US
23061 UNALLOCATED 8.39.119.0/24 3356 LEVEL3, US
Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS
Prefixes from private and non-routed address space (Global)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Prefix Origin AS Description
192.88.99.0/24 6939 HURRICANE, US
Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-dsua
Advertised Unallocated Addresses
--------------------------------
Unassigned Network ASN Information AS Name
23.136.224.0/24 Origin: 15206 UNASSIGNED
Transit: 174 COGENT-174, US
23.137.192.0/24 Origin: 31798 CANAD-86-31798, CA
Transit: 174 COGENT-174, US
27.100.7.0/24 Origin: 56096 UNASSIGNED
Transit: 45455 TH-2S1N-AP Two S One N Co Ltd, Internet
27.126.156.0/22 Origin: 55827 UNASSIGNED
Transit: 9930 TTNET-MY TIME dotCom Berhad, MY
27.126.156.0/23 Origin: 55827 UNASSIGNED
Transit: 9930 TTNET-MY TIME dotCom Berhad, MY
Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA
Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global)
-------------------------------------------------------
/1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0
/7:0 /8:10 /9:11 /10:38 /11:98 /12:285
/13:579 /14:1158 /15:1914 /16:13390 /17:8149 /18:13860
/19:25771 /20:40400 /21:47521 /22:98553 /23:81432 /24:463267
/25:1289 /26:0 /27:0 /28:0 /29:0 /30:0
/31:0 /32:0
Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations
-----------------------------------------------------
ASN No of nets Total ann. Description
12479 4908 5925 UNI2-AS, ES
31334 3885 4040 KABELDEUTSCHLAND-AS, DE
6327 3165 3376 SHAW, CA
11492 3128 3998 CABLEONE, US
7155 3125 4034 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE, US
39891 2946 3776 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA
8551 2752 3292 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Internet Backbo
22773 2747 3533 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC, US
8151 2080 6266 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX
30036 2059 2311 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS, US
Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos
Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global)
----------------------------------------------
1:1543 2:1157 3:30 4:19 5:3314 6:48
8:1379 9:1 12:1787 13:495 14:2242 15:74
16:9 17:285 18:79 20:58 23:3363 24:2646
25:4 27:2497 31:2986 32:103 35:40 36:933
37:3267 38:1913 39:323 40:132 41:3400 42:879
43:2100 44:196 45:13613 46:3671 47:276 49:1424
50:1219 51:87 52:1132 54:271 55:694 56:6
57:48 58:1882 59:1125 60:691 61:2200 62:2198
63:1947 64:5069 65:2315 66:4866 67:2832 68:1208
69:3798 70:1426 71:669 72:2774 74:2634 75:1436
76:667 77:2575 78:1951 79:2428 80:1857 81:1572
82:1244 83:1116 84:1220 85:2498 86:562 87:1729
88:1086 89:2694 90:314 91:7553 92:1484 93:2452
94:2606 95:3728 96:1016 97:337 98:966 99:962
100:85 101:1085 102:795 103:23249 104:3567 105:392
106:836 107:1964 108:704 109:3782 110:1780 111:1994
112:1572 113:1392 114:1517 115:1835 116:1788 117:2050
118:2102 119:1700 120:851 121:1040 122:2365 123:1887
124:1558 125:2034 128:1364 129:916 130:621 131:1825
132:761 133:299 134:1235 135:275 136:603 137:843
138:2184 139:987 140:596 141:887 142:878 143:1179
144:949 145:325 146:1478 147:1013 148:2064 149:1129
150:812 151:1280 152:1471 153:370 154:4671 155:892
156:3325 157:1084 158:765 159:1937 160:1763 161:1018
162:3034 163:781 164:1436 165:1247 166:544 167:1504
168:3691 169:495 170:4230 171:757 172:1883 173:2379
174:1036 175:1013 176:2643 177:4156 178:3015 179:1478
180:2193 181:2454 182:2845 183:1117 184:2400 185:16160
186:3752 187:2583 188:4059 189:2122 190:8302 191:1522
192:10243 193:7387 194:6031 195:4310 196:3416 197:1895
198:6126 199:5924 200:7171 201:5145 202:10422 203:10125
204:4549 205:3064 206:3256 207:3290 208:4010 209:4377
210:3999 211:1989 212:3199 213:3008 214:1171 215:54
216:5925 217:2355 218:874 219:604 220:1981 221:915
222:1002 223:1466
End of report
action(a)nanog.org seems to no longer exist. how should i be whining
about the following?
From: Electric Forest Festival <info(a)electricforestfestival.com>
Subject: Forest HQ Has Received Your Message: Re: Hi-Rise Building Fiber Suggestions
To: randy(a)psg.com
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 16:15:25 +0000
Electric Forest 2020 will take place on June 25-28, 2020. Forest HQ has received your email. Help save precious resources by reviewing the information below and looking up common questions in The Forest Frequently Asked Questions: Experience.ElectricForestFestival.com Please contact Festival Ticketing Support at 855-279-6941 for all issue regarding your purchase or for account troubleshooting. Electric Forest is sold out. Lyte is the only HQ endorsed way to get passes now that it’s sold out. To know when all things Electric Forest 2020 are happening sign up to the EF Newsletter. Happy Forest!
Does anyone have a contact at Verizon FIOS?
Please respond off list.
V/R,
Joe Klein
"inveniet viam, aut faciet" --- Seneca's Hercules Furens (Act II, Scene 1)
"I never lose. I either win or learn" - Nelson Mandela
