August 2007 - Test - lists.nanog.org

US transit providers with slightly better than average International connectivity?
by Drew Weaver 13 Aug '07

13 Aug '07

Howdy, I know with the trans-atlantic and trans-pacific connectivity being what it is these days that getting reliable (i.e. low latency < 200, low packet loss < 5% total round-trip) to countries such as AE and others is kind of a "shot in the dark". However, I wanted to ping the list and see if anyone has had 'better luck/worse luck' with particular transit providers. We're currently utilizing Time Warner Telecom, Level3, and Global Crossing as our transit partners and we're shopping for a fourth at this time, we would really like to find a transit provider with 'better' international presence. Any suggestions based on experience? Thanks, -Drew

3 2

Re: [RRG] Routers in DFZ
by Eliot Lear 12 Aug '07

12 Aug '07

John, > Done. draft-ietf-idr-bgp-multisession-03 provides the necessary > protocol machinery. While that draft looks reasonable for its intended purpose, I think Dino was talking about actually shoveling less crap around, router by router. That having been said, I've somewhat lost the plot here. Is the point to allow for priority processing of certain types of information in the face of a performance problem? If so, that's a fine *tactical* and incremental approach (although I don't think much of using a TCP window as application layer flow control - it leads to bad behaviors on both sides when the number of connections increase [See RFC-793, Page 42, "Managing the Window"). But to your original point, that one cannot simply assume a linear death march, I'd agree. I think Tony and others' points were that the issue here is in cost and development curves, looking many MANY years out. If we can find an even better approach to avoid brute force with acceptable trade-offs (and those are a lot of ifs), then we've advanced the state of the art and that's a good thing. Eliot

1 0

RE: [ppml] too many variables
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 12 Aug '07

12 Aug '07

> And yet people still say the sky is falling with > respect to routing convergence and FIB size. > Probably a better comparison BTW, would be with a Actually, the better comparison is with the power of current processors used in Juniper and Cisco gear with the current Moore's law power of common off-the-shelf PC processors. Then go back to the point in time when there were real actual issues with FIB size on routers, and look at the same relative power. Today, is there a bigger or a smaller gap than way back when there were real problems on the net. If the gap is bigger or the same, then we are nuts to worry about it. If the gap is significantly smaller then we should get some serious researchers to figure out the real limits of current technology and the future technology at the point where the gap has gone to zero. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: Content Delivery Networks
by Chris L. Morrow 11 Aug '07

11 Aug '07

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007, Max Inux wrote: > Of course the CDN wouldn't know or care, it would however possibly > lead to that user experiencing negative performance or availability > outside the realm of the CDN's control. I know where we are we move > things via dns atleast 2xTTL early, usually more, but emergency > situations (i.e. taiwan earthquake, fiber cuts, oc192 outages etc.) > would have serious negative implications for users or servers > ignoring the TTL- it is sometimes set for a legitimate reason. I'm sorry, I think you or I miscommunicated... What I was asking, as 'how does the CDN or CDN operator know that the recursive server is ignoring the TTL returned with the RR as opposed to client side issues?' Your response didn't really answer that part. I ask because you seem to have data proving ( to some extent ) that 'many nameservers ignore ttls', I was curious how you'd gathered that, and how you'd know that the nameservers (aside from querying them directly) were ignoring TTLs on RRs. Thanks. > On Aug 10, 2007, at 6:22 PM, Chris L. Morrow wrote: > > > > > On Aug 10, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Max Inux wrote: > > > >> Working for a content delivery network I can tell you that there > >> are many nameservers ignoring TTL that affect many users (AOL > >> being the largest american one). Coincidentally AOL users aren't > > > > So, I'd also ask this, do you know it's the recursive server, or is > > the > > behavior that you see related more to the application caching and not > > respecting the TTL? (IE for instance and it's default 30 minute, I > > think, > > ttl). > > > > How does a CDN tell the recursive server is doing this vice the client > > app? >

1 0

large organization nameservers sending icmp packets to dns servers.
by Drew Weaver 11 Aug '07

11 Aug '07

Is it a fairly normal practice for large companies such as Yahoo! And Mozilla to send icmp/ping packets to DNS servers? If so, why? And a related question would be from a service provider standpoint is there any reason to deny ICMP/PING packets to name servers within your organization? Thanks, -Drew

35 69

Client information?
by Paul Atkins 11 Aug '07

11 Aug '07

Hello, I am a network researcher. One question I want to ask the ISPs here are that if they have a choice of finding more information about the hosts that connect to them, is it something they will like to spend money on? For example if the ISP can find out what applications is the host running etc. would it be useful for the ISPs? Thanks

6 9

Re: Content Delivery Networks
by Rodney Joffe 10 Aug '07

10 Aug '07

On Aug 10, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Max Inux wrote: > Working for a content delivery network I can tell you that there > are many nameservers ignoring TTL that affect many users (AOL > being the largest american one). Coincidentally AOL users aren't > nearly so affected by that as they are that their data goes to > Virginia to enter the internet negating close-to-end-user > acceleration benefits. > > Additionally there are several networks off of Singtel (Singapore/ > Southern asia/oceania), Many in Australia (Likely due to Squid > caches to prevent egress), and in Europe (Mostly France) that I > have specifically ran into that had this disregard for TTL impact > them. In short, they are out there, and they will bite you from > time to time if your network is widely enough used. Specifics? Off list is fine.

2 1

Re: large organization nameservers sending icmp packets to dns servers.
by Mark Andrews 10 Aug '07

10 Aug '07

I suspect that the origin of the myth that DNS/TCP is more dangerous than DNS/UDP is that the first root expliot of named was over TCP not UDP. There were later exploits that were UDP only which totally busted the myth but it continues to live. Mark

2 3

Re: [ppml] too many variables
by vijay gill 10 Aug '07

10 Aug '07

On 8/10/07, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm(a)ipinc.net> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ppml-bounces(a)arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net]On Behalf Of > vijay gill > > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 11:08 AM > > To: John Paul Morrison > > Cc: ppml(a)arin.net; nanog(a)nanog.org > > Subject: Re: [ppml] too many variables > > > > I guess people are still spectacularly missing the real point. The point > isn't that the latest generation > > hardware cpu du jour you can pick up from the local hardware store is > doubling processing power every n months. > > The point is that getting them qualified, tested, verified, and then > deployed is a non trivial task. > > This is nonsense. The hardware cpu de jour that you pick up from the > local > chop shop is 1-2 years > BEHIND what the high end fileserver vendors are using. Companies like HP > go > through a qualification, > testing and verification process for their high end gear that is no less > rigorous than what Cisco uses. I knew reading nanog was a bad idea. However, now that I am well and truly in the weeds, might as well go forth. The phrase that I think I am looking for is.... it's coming to me...almost there.... ah yes amortization specifically amortization...units sold... cost basis... something something. /vijay The big difference is that the PC vendors get the processors from Intel and > AMD when they are > in beta, and do their design and development while Intel and AMD are doing > their own > CPU design and development. So when Intel is done and ready to release, > there is little work > for the PC vendors left to do to ship complete product. > > The router vendors are approaching this like Ford and Chevy build car > computers. They can get > old Pentium 3 700Mhz chips for a few bucks a processor so that is what > they > are using. They > can make an extra $90 in profit selling a $5000 router CPU card that has a > $10 processor in it than > a $5000 router CPU card that has a $100 processor in it. And from a > marketing perspective if > the router uses some exotic RISC chip that nobody has ever heard of, > (because it's 15 year old > obsolete technology) that somewhat insulates them from unflattering > comparisons like what > people are making here. > > This kind of attitude is symptomatic of the embedded systems industry. > Price the stuff out first > THEN develop for it. This is why for example you don't have an Ethernet > jack in your automobile > that you can plug a laptop in and get a complete fault code analysis for a > vehicle failure > from an embedded webserver in the engine computer. The embedded systems > people insist on > reinventing the wheel every time they design something and do their best > to > ignore what > goes on in the PC world. > > Go ahead and make your arguments about deployment, but it is the router > vendors who are foot > dragging here. > > Ted > > >

1 0

Weekly Routing Table Report
by Routing Analysis Role Account 10 Aug '07

10 Aug '07

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfs(a)cisco.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 11 Aug, 2007 Report Website: http://thyme.apnic.net This report: http://thyme.apnic.net/ap-data/2007/08/11/0400 Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 227875 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 119464 Deaggregation factor: 1.91 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 110970 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 25926 Prefixes per ASN: 8.79 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 22589 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 11046 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3337 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 75 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 3.6 Max AS path length visible: 21 Max AS path prepend of ASN (35389) 16 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 7 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 3 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 5 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 11 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 1749388768 Equivalent to 104 /8s, 69 /16s and 141 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 47.2 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 61.8 Percentage of available address space allocated: 76.4 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 120402 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 53191 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 20712 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 2.57 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 50139 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 22150 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3031 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 16.54 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 824 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 462 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 3.6 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 15 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 311122080 Equivalent to 18 /8s, 139 /16s and 88 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 77.1 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911 APNIC Address Blocks 58/7, 60/7, 116/6, 120/6, 124/7, 126/8, 202/7 210/7, 218/7, 220/7 and 222/8 ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 107833 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 62588 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.72 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 79381 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 31831 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 11735 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 6.76 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 4526 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1069 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.4 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 16 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 341862144 Equivalent to 20 /8s, 96 /16s and 103 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 75.5 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 ARIN Address Blocks 24/8, 63/8, 64/5, 72/6, 76/8, 96/6, 199/8, 204/6, 208/7 and 216/8 RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 48019 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 30741 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 1.56 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 44367 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 29166 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 10041 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 4.42 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 5357 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1598 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.0 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 21 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 323784320 Equivalent to 19 /8s, 76 /16s and 142 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 74.2 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 40960-44031 RIPE Address Blocks 62/8, 77/8, 78/7, 80/4, 193/8, 194/7, 212/7 and 217/8 LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 16134 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 4375 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.69 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 14185 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 7718 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 842 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 16.85 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 274 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 143 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.1 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 19 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 41738240 Equivalent to 2 /8s, 124 /16s and 224 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 62.2 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 189/8, 190/8, 200/7 AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 2688 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 1038 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 2.59 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 2223 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 1355 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 201 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 11.06 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 65 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 32 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 3.8 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 14 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 6319616 Equivalent to 0 /8s, 96 /16s and 110 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 18.8 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 196/8 APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4134 1329 11126 287 CHINANET-BACKBONE 4755 1317 382 71 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 9583 1124 80 402 Sify Limited 9498 994 532 69 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 4766 798 5440 316 Korea Telecom (KIX) 23577 788 34 684 Korea Telecom (ATM-MPLS) 17488 742 48 59 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 7545 702 150 116 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 18101 581 117 39 Reliance Infocom Ltd Internet 1221 549 1951 427 Telstra Pty Ltd 4812 529 915 95 China Telecom (Shanghai) 4668 512 68 10 LG-EDS Systems Inc. 17676 504 10935 65 Softbank BB Corp. 4808 478 768 109 CNCGROUP IP network: China169 9443 473 122 77 Primus Telecommunications 4802 419 112 152 Wantree Development 7474 399 217 272 SingTel Optus Pty Ltd 17974 362 130 13 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 4837 352 4944 164 chinanet IDC center beijing n 9829 352 258 14 BSNL National Internet Backbo ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 7018 1473 6075 989 AT&T WorldNet Services 4323 1328 1022 372 Time Warner Telecom 2386 1203 614 740 AT&T Data Communications Serv 6478 1115 322 132 AT&T Worldnet Services 11492 1113 108 38 Cable One 6197 1028 717 509 BellSouth Network Solutions, 18566 1018 288 9 Covad Communications 174 966 6777 856 Cogent Communications 701 944 6563 720 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 7011 906 259 544 Citizens Utilities 20115 807 742 431 Charter Communications 1239 806 2741 573 Sprint 19262 766 2721 185 Verizon Global Networks 22773 754 2148 49 Cox Communications, Inc. 209 743 3869 588 Qwest 5668 629 171 23 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, 6517 579 161 37 Yipes Communications, Inc. 855 575 254 73 Canadian Research Network 852 574 1093 365 Telus Advanced Communications 6198 569 613 259 BellSouth Network Solutions, RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 2119 515 1075 138 Telenor Internet Access 702 503 1922 404 UUNET - Commercial IP service 24863 362 57 41 LINKdotNET AS number 9116 349 168 26 Goldenlines main autonomous s 3301 313 1456 293 TeliaNet Sweden 3320 311 6034 257 Deutsche Telekom AG 6746 287 130 263 Dynamic Network Technologies, 5089 269 1658 54 NTL Group Limited 680 266 2061 257 DFN-IP service G-WiN 8220 261 446 244 COLT Telecommunications 3215 256 2392 97 France Telecom Transpac 8708 253 420 242 Romania Data Systems S.A. 8551 231 228 27 Bezeq International 3352 224 1864 41 Ibernet, Internet Access Netw 3269 221 2775 73 TELECOM ITALIA 9121 210 1441 24 TTnet Autonomous System 3292 195 1379 175 TDC Tele Danmark 1257 194 1195 172 SWIPnet Swedish IP Network 12479 193 578 6 Uni2 Autonomous System 3300 191 172 91 AUCS Communications Services LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 904 1957 211 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 11830 483 299 9 Instituto Costarricense de El 16814 426 26 9 NSS, S.A. 11172 374 115 61 Servicios Alestra S.A de C.V 14522 334 28 7 SatNet S.A. 7303 331 172 42 Telecom Argentina Stet-France 22047 318 246 13 VTR PUNTO NET S.A. 6471 316 75 32 ENTEL CHILE S.A. 14117 281 19 15 Telefonica del Sur S.A. 10481 261 104 9 Prima S.A. 11556 229 128 3 Cable-Wireless Panama 6147 226 176 27 Telefonica Del Peru 10620 217 61 26 TVCABLE BOGOTA 6503 201 171 83 AVANTEL, S.A. 23216 195 16 43 RAMtelecom Telecomunicaciones 8163 177 11 6 METROTEL REDES S.A. 19169 170 15 20 Telconet 20299 163 24 21 NEWCOM AMERICAS 21826 162 28 61 INTERCABLE 7738 159 506 23 Telecomunicacoes da Bahia S.A AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 3741 282 867 223 The Internet Solution 8452 229 188 7 TEDATA 6713 142 135 11 Itissalat Al-MAGHRIB 2018 141 301 115 Tertiary Education Network 33783 125 8 11 EEPAD TISP TELECOM & INTERNET 5536 124 8 10 Internet Egypt Network 33776 99 6 8 Starcomms Nigeria Limited 24835 87 48 6 RAYA Telecom - Egypt 15475 78 84 4 Nile Online 2905 75 174 72 The Internetworking Company o 2561 62 6 2 Egyptian Universities Network 15706 56 12 4 Sudatel Internet Exchange Aut 23889 52 24 15 MAURITIUS TELECOM 5713 46 294 36 Telkom SA Ltd 33774 46 29 24 AS Number for Telecom Algeria 16637 42 21 29 Johnnic e-Ventures 8524 31 2 10 AUCEGYPT Autonomous System 12455 30 6 3 Jambonet Autonomous system 21280 30 4 4 Swift Global Kenya Ltd.Is an 10798 24 2 15 Standard Bank of South Africa Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 4755 1317 1246 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 11492 1113 1075 Cable One 4134 1329 1042 CHINANET-BACKBONE 18566 1018 1009 Covad Communications 6478 1115 983 AT&T Worldnet Services 4323 1328 956 Time Warner Telecom 9498 994 925 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 9583 1124 722 Sify Limited 22773 754 705 Cox Communications, Inc. 8151 904 693 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 17488 742 683 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 5668 629 606 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, 7545 702 586 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 19262 766 581 Verizon Global Networks 18101 581 542 Reliance Infocom Ltd Internet 6517 579 542 Yipes Communications, Inc. 15270 568 530 PaeTec.net -a division of Pae 6197 1028 519 BellSouth Network Solutions, 19916 568 517 OLM LLC 855 575 502 Canadian Research Network List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 64513 PRIVATE 63.171.234.0/26 1803 SPRINT 64513 PRIVATE 63.171.234.64/26 1803 SPRINT 64513 PRIVATE 63.171.234.128/26 1803 SPRINT 64513 PRIVATE 63.171.234.192/26 1803 SPRINT 38347 UNALLOCATED 116.212.160.0/21 9389 BEIJING SHENZHOU GRE 38347 UNALLOCATED 116.212.168.0/21 9389 BEIJING SHENZHOU GRE 24410 UNALLOCATED 203.119.28.0/24 4134 CHINANET-BACKBONE Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 7.1.1.0/24 1239 Sprint 132.0.0.0/10 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 137.0.0.0/13 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 158.0.0.0/13 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 172.33.1.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Services 192.0.10.0/24 9498 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 192.44.0.0/24 5501 Fraunhofer Gesellschaft 192.44.0.0/19 702 UUNET - Commercial IP service 192.70.164.0/24 25689 National Research Council of 192.153.136.0/21 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 192.172.0.0/19 721 DLA Systems Automation Center Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:18 /9:9 /10:15 /11:36 /12:133 /13:257 /14:470 /15:909 /16:9572 /17:4043 /18:6513 /19:13827 /20:16056 /21:14697 /22:19048 /23:19975 /24:119925 /25:767 /26:1022 /27:490 /28:80 /29:5 /30:0 /31:0 /32:8 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 6478 1114 1115 AT&T Worldnet Services 11492 1105 1113 Cable One 18566 1000 1018 Covad Communications 9583 966 1124 Sify Limited 2386 897 1203 AT&T Data Communications Serv 7018 808 1473 AT&T WorldNet Services 7011 804 906 Citizens Utilities 6197 782 1028 BellSouth Network Solutions, 23577 779 788 Korea Telecom (ATM-MPLS) 4755 708 1317 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 9498 663 994 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 4766 595 798 Korea Telecom (KIX) 17488 565 742 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 19916 563 568 OLM LLC 4323 559 1328 Time Warner Telecom 6517 544 579 Yipes Communications, Inc. 15270 532 568 PaeTec.net -a division of Pae 4668 502 512 LG-EDS Systems Inc. 5668 495 629 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, 18101 495 581 Reliance Infocom Ltd Internet Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 4:8 7:1 8:85 12:1795 15:19 16:3 17:3 18:12 20:37 24:928 25:1 32:57 33:3 38:345 40:60 41:292 44:2 47:4 52:4 55:3 56:3 57:25 58:470 59:389 60:343 61:990 62:918 63:1993 64:3141 65:2341 66:3317 67:753 68:623 69:1933 70:445 71:104 72:1378 73:2 74:615 75:254 76:97 77:277 78:32 80:830 81:824 82:662 83:371 84:600 85:852 86:337 87:478 88:275 89:951 90:22 91:460 97:6 116:270 117:124 121:258 122:572 123:151 124:841 125:980 128:292 129:212 130:139 131:362 132:55 133:9 134:199 135:34 136:188 137:80 138:149 139:71 140:489 141:172 142:378 143:254 144:299 145:46 146:325 147:120 148:410 149:142 150:111 151:159 152:90 153:122 154:3 155:260 156:156 157:212 158:157 159:172 160:108 161:94 162:185 163:179 164:466 165:393 166:271 167:295 168:507 169:121 170:410 171:22 172:2 189:71 190:928 192:5751 193:3964 194:3171 195:2270 196:974 198:3813 199:3270 200:5074 201:1147 202:7402 203:7586 204:3943 205:1975 206:2421 207:2818 208:2762 209:3514 210:2423 211:971 212:1317 213:1457 214:418 215:41 216:3979 217:1156 218:351 219:383 220:1006 221:413 222:267 End of report

1 0