- Test - lists.nanog.org

The Cidr Report
by cidr-report＠potaroo.net 28 Sep '02

28 Sep '02

This report has been generated at Sun Sep 29 06:32:47 2002 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of the Route-Views router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 22-09-02 121438 87731 23-09-02 121323 87980 24-09-02 121407 88246 25-09-02 121566 88349 26-09-02 121459 87822 27-09-02 122059 87644 28-09-02 123673 89338 29-09-02 123685 89454 Possible Bogus Routes 10.5.5.0/30 AS11537 ABILENE University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development 10.11.11.0/30 AS11537 ABILENE University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development 10.33.0.0/23 AS174 PSINET PSINet Inc. 10.33.8.0/24 AS174 PSINET PSINet Inc. 39.0.0.0/8 AS4554 EP0-BLK-ASNBLOCK-4 Exchange Point Blocks AS Summary 13991 Number of ASes in routing system 5313 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 1940 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS174 : PSINET PSINet Inc. 73212416 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) AS568 : SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA Aggregation Summary The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes'). --- 29Sep02 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 123655 89454 34201 27.7% All ASes AS209 1818 1042 776 42.7% ASN-QWEST Qwest AS3908 1124 622 502 44.7% SUPERNETASBLK SuperNet, Inc. AS701 1786 1286 500 28.0% ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS2548 1582 1119 463 29.3% ICIX-MD-AS Business Internet, Inc. AS7132 603 140 463 76.8% SBIS-AS Southwestern Bell Internet Services AS174 1940 1520 420 21.6% PSINET PSINet Inc. AS7018 1360 959 401 29.5% ATT-INTERNET4 AT&T WorldNet Services AS1221 1306 940 366 28.0% ASN-TELSTRA Telstra Pty Ltd AS4323 647 305 342 52.9% TW-COMM Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS7843 712 410 302 42.4% ADELPHIA-AS Adelphia Corp. AS852 758 458 300 39.6% ASN852 Telus Advanced Communications AS6197 383 97 286 74.7% BATI-ATL BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS7046 585 312 273 46.7% UUNET-CUSTOMER UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS18566 273 4 269 98.5% COVAD Covad Communications AS4151 279 32 247 88.5% USDA-1 USDA AS4355 383 145 238 62.1% ERMS-EARTHLNK EARTHLINK, INC AS1 669 447 222 33.2% GNTY-1 Genuity AS6347 393 173 220 56.0% DIAMOND SAVVIS Communications Corporation AS4814 255 37 218 85.5% CHINANET-BEIJING-AP China Telecom (Group)Beijing Telecom CompanyBeijing China AS705 409 199 210 51.3% ASN-ALTERNET UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS1239 849 652 197 23.2% SprintLink Sprint AS22927 215 20 195 90.7% AR-TEAR2-LACNIC TELEFONICA DE ARGENTINA AS690 518 325 193 37.3% NSFNET-T3-RT-AS Merit Network Inc. AS6595 250 68 182 72.8% DODDSEUR DoD Education Activity Network Assistance Center AS4134 302 122 180 59.6% ERX-CHINALINK Data Communications Bureau AS2386 421 243 178 42.3% INS-AS AT&T Data Communications Services AS3356 389 212 177 45.5% LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications, LLC AS1791 184 21 163 88.6% SPRINTLINK3 Sprint Government Systems Division AS6327 180 20 160 88.9% SHAWFIBER Shaw Fiberlink Limited AS376 337 184 153 45.4% RISQ-AS Reseau Interordinateurs Scientique Quebecois (RISQ) Total 20910 12114 8796 42.1% Top 30 total Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog(a)merit.edu eof-list(a)ripe.net apops(a)lists.apnic.net routing-wg(a)ripe.net afnog(a)afnog.org

1 0

Re: Internet Core Routing - Ethernet
by Bob Martinez 28 Sep '02

28 Sep '02

Mike: Chill dude. Topic is Ethernet. Start your own post. I like you posts. Care to challenge Ethernet in the Internet Core? Why are you so attached to a specific vendor at a specific time. Talk it out with the folks that pissed you off before. Not my problem man. Ethernet. Sometimes I laugh out loud when I read some of you guys's posts. Best 10 minutes of my day. Keeps me well informed of what my mental superiors are up to. And no, I'm not the CEO of any company for God Sakes! I'd be trying to cure world hunger from my beach house, and automated toys all over the place... Bobby Martinez. >From: Mike Leber <mleber(a)he.net> >To: Bob Martinez <bobmartinezzz(a)hotmail.com> >CC: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Internet Core Routing - Ethernet >Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 00:20:24 -0700 (PDT) > > >On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Bob Martinez wrote: > > 1. Why are you talking about vendors when you should be talking about > > technology on this list. Just like the charters. I would recommend to > > NANOG "if you disagree, say nay" that any post to NANOG with a vendor >name > > in it be sent to the vendor for comment before being posted to the list. > > Just my 2 cents here. > >Operations has alot to do with experience with specific equipment, more so >then it does abstracted conversations about theoretical configurations. > >There are abundant protocols that lack implementation. Many people >believe they can instantiate an implementation by writing an RFC, or so >you would get the impression by reading RFCs. > >Regarding "be sent to the vendor for comment before being posted", your >question about "Does vendor Z have wire-speed X?" has produced outright >lies for the last 10 years. There is *always* a catch to any such claims >regarding routers. > >Take posts to NANOG with a grain of salt. There is a large range of >experience. > >BTW, you listed a bunch of questions. Please post a specific one you want >to know about. You might get it answered. > >+----------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -----------------+ >| Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | >| Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | >| mleber(a)he.net http://www.he.net | >+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

1 0

coxcable???
by Scott Granados 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

Any chance an engineer from Cox Cable can give me a call or message back. I'm seeing some odd routing problems between us. Scott

1 0

layer 3 switch debate
by ip dude 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

IP Community: When designing an all IP network requiring mostly Ethernet interfaces, the logical conclusion is to specify layer 3 switches (instead of routers). The cost per port and functionality requirements make a layer 3 switch the perfect choice. However, the rule of thumb in the IP community is that routers are superior to layer 3 switches and should be utilized instead, especially when considering core type functionality. Does this rule of thumb still apply considering the modern layer 3 switches available? If not, why? What makes a layer 3 switch sub-standard to a pure router? Any quantitative analysis you could provide would be greatly appreciated. I realize your answer may depend on device position within the network. I am comparing a router to a layer 3 switch as a core routing device, an EBGP border router and access device. Remember, my network is comprised of mostly Ethernet interfaces (FW, GE) and the occasional DS1 and DS3 interface. Any opinions would be great. Cheers! Asand Bijaka _____________________________________________________________ Get your own free Ranch eMail and Classified Ads at http://cattletoday.com _____________________________________________________________ Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get you(a)yourchoice.com w/No Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag

6 7

Re: False-alarm generator
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

Why do ISPs want to provide free consulting advice to debug why a government map turned red today? If it is like Zonealarm or Netmedic, most of the "alarms" are due to problems with the customer's application. If the government map is designed properly then it won't turn red unless 75% of the ISP maps have turned red. In other words, a proper national or international alarming system will average out the data from several ISPs according to some kind of weighting formula so that one or two red ISPs will only contribute to a light yellow indicator on a national scale. Although an aggregated flow of information from outage reports would be useful to a national Internet status monitoring group, it would be far more useful for every ISP to report a regular red-amber-or-green status. This is qualitative information that the national group could consolidate using a weighting system that rated each ISP according to how important their network is within the big picture. Yes, it is likely that there would be errors in the weighting system but as some experience is gained with the system, that weighting can be tuned. As far as NANOG is concerned, we could help by setting up systems to report overall health according to a consistent red-amber-or-green system and we could help by ensuring that we do have an outage list (or high level stream of trouble tickets) that could be offered to a national status monitoring group. We could also help by suggesting the weighting that should be applied to various ISP networks in calculating a national traffic light report on Internet health. I anyone is interested in discussing this further perhaps we could get together in Eugene to discuss it. -- Michael Dillon

2 1

Re: layer 3 switch debate
by ip dude 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

Since you are from Cisco...so it is your opinion that a Catalyst 6509 (i.e. Layer 3 switch) is equivalent to a 7206 or GSR? Of course, this is in regard to 'core' routing device in the middle of a national IP network. This network in question just happens to utilize a lot of GE LH interconnections. --- "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk(a)cisco.com> wrote: > >Thus spake "ip dude" <ipdude(a)cattle-today.com> >> IP Community: >> >> When designing an all IP network requiring mostly Ethernet interfaces, the >logical conclusion is to specify layer 3 switches (instead of routers). The cost >per port and functionality requirements make a layer 3 switch the perfect >choice. However, the rule of thumb in the IP community is that routers are >superior to layer 3 switches and should be utilized instead, especially when >considering core type functionality. >> >> Does this rule of thumb still apply considering the modern layer 3 switches >available? If not, why? What makes a layer 3 switch sub-standard to a pure >router? Any quantitative analysis you could provide would be greatly >appreciated. > > >"switch" is a marketing term meaning fast, nothing more. Any device that >operates at Layer 3 is a router by definition. Therefore, "Layer 3 switch" >means "fast router". > >Now think about your question again. > >S _____________________________________________________________ Get your own free Ranch eMail and Classified Ads at http://cattletoday.com _____________________________________________________________ Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get you(a)yourchoice.com w/No Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag

4 3

Anybody on 64.0.0.0/8?
by Patrick Muldoon 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

If so, could you please contact me off-list, need to run a test from outside our netblock. -Patrick -- Patrick Muldoon, Network/Software Engineer INOC, LLC doon(a)inoc.net (A)bort, (R)etry, (P)anic?

1 1

The Cidr Report
by cidr-report＠potaroo.net 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

This report has been generated at Fri Sep 27 20:32:43 2002 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of the Route-Views router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 20-09-02 121329 87082 21-09-02 121481 87337 22-09-02 121438 87731 23-09-02 121323 87980 24-09-02 121407 88246 25-09-02 121566 88349 26-09-02 121459 87822 27-09-02 122059 87558 Possible Bogus Routes 7.1.1.0/30 AS12357 COMUNITEL Comunitel Global Autonomous System 10.5.5.0/30 AS11537 ABILENE University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development 10.11.11.0/30 AS11537 ABILENE University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development 10.33.0.0/23 AS174 PSINET PSINet Inc. 10.33.8.0/24 AS174 PSINET PSINet Inc. 39.0.0.0/8 AS4554 EP0-BLK-ASNBLOCK-4 Exchange Point Blocks AS Summary 13979 Number of ASes in routing system 5289 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 1816 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS209 : ASN-QWEST Qwest 73220608 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) AS568 : SUMNET-AS DISO-UNRRA Aggregation Summary The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes'). --- 27Sep02 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 121705 87359 34346 28.2% All ASes AS209 1816 1038 778 42.8% ASN-QWEST Qwest AS3908 1124 621 503 44.8% SUPERNETASBLK SuperNet, Inc. AS701 1786 1286 500 28.0% ALTERNET-AS UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS2548 1586 1123 463 29.2% ICIX-MD-AS Business Internet, Inc. AS7132 602 140 462 76.7% SBIS-AS Southwestern Bell Internet Services AS7018 1359 959 400 29.4% ATT-INTERNET4 AT&T WorldNet Services AS7843 711 341 370 52.0% ADELPHIA-AS Adelphia Corp. AS1221 1304 938 366 28.1% ASN-TELSTRA Telstra Pty Ltd AS4323 645 295 350 54.3% TW-COMM Time Warner Communications, Inc. AS852 756 458 298 39.4% ASN852 Telus Advanced Communications AS6197 382 97 285 74.6% BATI-ATL BellSouth Network Solutions, Inc AS7046 590 316 274 46.4% UUNET-CUSTOMER UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS18566 272 4 268 98.5% COVAD Covad Communications AS174 593 330 263 44.4% PSINET PSINet Inc. AS4151 279 32 247 88.5% USDA-1 USDA AS4355 382 144 238 62.3% ERMS-EARTHLNK EARTHLINK, INC AS1 672 442 230 34.2% GNTY-1 Genuity AS6347 397 170 227 57.2% DIAMOND SAVVIS Communications Corporation AS4814 255 36 219 85.9% CHINANET-BEIJING-AP China Telecom (Group)Beijing Telecom CompanyBeijing China AS705 408 198 210 51.5% ASN-ALTERNET UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS1580 210 11 199 94.8% HQ, 5th Signal Command AS22927 215 20 195 90.7% AR-TEAR2-LACNIC TELEFONICA DE ARGENTINA AS690 517 324 193 37.3% NSFNET-T3-RT-AS Merit Network Inc. AS1239 1110 930 180 16.2% SprintLink Sprint AS2386 421 243 178 42.3% INS-AS AT&T Data Communications Services AS3356 389 214 175 45.0% LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications, LLC AS6595 232 60 172 74.1% DODDSEUR DoD Education Activity Network Assistance Center AS1791 184 21 163 88.6% SPRINTLINK3 Sprint Government Systems Division AS4134 302 139 163 54.0% ERX-CHINALINK Data Communications Bureau AS6327 180 20 160 88.9% SHAWFIBER Shaw Fiberlink Limited Total 19679 10950 8729 44.4% Top 30 total Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog(a)merit.edu eof-list(a)ripe.net apops(a)lists.apnic.net routing-wg(a)ripe.net afnog(a)afnog.org

1 0

any known users of NetRange 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
by hostmaster 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

Hello friends, I have this very odd email address found with one of our employees.... <hidden_user(a)172.17.0.1> A.f.a.i.k. 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 is: NetRange: 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 CIDR: 172.16.0.0/12 NetName: IANA-BBLK-RESERVED NetHandle: NET-172-16-0-0-1 Parent: NET-172-0-0-0-0 NetType: IANA Special Use NameServer: BLACKHOLE-1.IANA.ORG NameServer: BLACKHOLE-2.IANA.ORG Comment: This block is reserved for special purposes. Please see RFC 1918 for additional information. RegDate: 1994-03-15 Updated: 2002-09-12 Here's my questions: - Given that 1918 deals with allocation issues for "private Internets", is there a recording entity of this special address space beyond the formal IANA, which details the distribution of data from any "private Internet" once it enters the public Internet vice versa ? - Whom to anyone's knowledge is known to be using (for special projects) or perhaps misusing this 172.17.0.1 ? Greatly appreciate some insight, off list or on list, at your leisure. best to all, Bertil Bertil Fortrie hostmaster(a)nso.org

2 1

Re: any known users of NetRange 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
by Tony Rall 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

On Friday, 2002-09-27 at 03:14 GMT, "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam(a)noc.everquick.net> wrote: > It's difficult for TCP to work when there's no return path, > unless one has highly-predictable ISNs. Chances are it's > "inside" the network. Perhaps you missed the point where the original problem was with an email address: " I have this very odd email address found with one of our employees.... <hidden_user(a)172.17.0.1>" Email addresses, in fact everything in rfc822 headers, are unrelated to tcp connectivity issues. If the employee got the email I'm willing to assume there was connectivity. If you wish, I can describe exactly how such an address could be in the rfc822 From header of a message that could be delivered to you - even if 172.17.0.1 is the address of the originating device and you have no way of reaching that address. Tony Rall

3 2