Re: The Cidr Report
Why should they, there is no reason for them to. Personally I wonder what would happen if we (the rest of us) started filtering on /19's or /20's :) But then you take UUNET (Alternet) and for example 207.170.32.0 /19 is advertised as a /19 AND a stack of /24's all with the same AS path and from what I can tell no special routes, at least not via nitrous.digex.net But what do I know, I am a lonely little guy... :) At 01:19 PM 9/11/98 -0700, Tim Wolfe wrote:
Anyone care to comment on the fact that the top non-compliant companies never really seem to make any significant changes?
--- 11Sep98 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description
AS701 1185 956 229 19.3% Alternet AS271 349 152 197 56.4% BCnet Backbone AS4293 445 258 187 42.0% IMCI AS174 789 611 178 22.6% Performance Systems International AS3749 225 68 157 69.8% TECNET AS2493 373 217 156 41.8% iSTAR Internet, Inc. AS4200 192 100 92 47.9% AGIS (Apex Global Information Ser AS5668 128 41 87 68.0% Century Telephone Inc. AS2685 229 151 78 34.1% IBM Global Network - US AS4755 125 49 76 60.8% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. India AS3221 117 44 73 62.4% EENet Autonomous System AS4740 404 336 68 16.8% Ozemail Pty Ltd (ASN-OZEMAIL) AS3493 251 183 68 27.1% INTERLINK AS7046 239 172 67 28.0% UUNET-CUSTOMER AS3804 215 157 58 27.0% Bell Solutions AS10928 101 46 55 54.5% UNKNOWN AS549 204 151 53 26.0% ONet Backbone AS8517 123 71 52 42.3% ULAKNET-ASN AS6335 69 20 49 71.0% NTRNET AS72 87 39 48 55.2% Schlumberger Information Network AS1239 548 501 47 8.6% SprintLink Backbone AS803 78 34 44 56.4% SaskNet Backbone AS6181 66 26 40 60.6% FUSE-NET AS4539 67 27 40 59.7% NETROPOLIS AS852 159 120 39 24.5% AGT Advance Communication AS3403 159 120 39 24.5% TIAC AS7122 118 80 38 32.2% MTS ADVANCED Network Policy AS10459 45 10 35 77.8% WANSASN AS2707 64 31 33 51.6% WEC AS6332 89 58 31 34.8% TELNOR
--------------------------------------------------- Tim Wolfe, Network Administrator ClipperNet Internet Access Services tim@clipper.net 541.431.3360 voice 541.431.1176 fax ...Across the Desktop and around the World... ---------------------------------------------------
John M. Brown wrote:
Why should they, there is no reason for them to. Personally I wonder what would happen if we (the rest of us) started filtering on /19's or /20's :)
Not to rehash, but there are legitimate reasons to advertise /24's. I'd say that filtering at that level would be reasonable. What bothers me is seeing certain networks advertising an aggregate along with all or most subnetworks. Being flexible with one's downstreams is one thing, irresponsible adverts are another.
But then you take UUNET (Alternet) and for example 207.170.32.0 /19 is advertised as a /19 AND a stack of /24's all with the same AS path and from what I can tell no special routes, at least not via nitrous.digex.net But what do I know, I am a lonely little guy... :)
My point exactly :-) -- Brian Wallingford Network Operations Manager Meganet Communications, TCIx, Inc.
Yup! (I agree with both of your points! :) ) We should allow /24's into the route system and it wouldn't be as big of a deal if folks like AS701 and others cleaned up there routes. Many rural providers are going to be multi-homing and thus we are going to see an increase of /24 - /20 blocks. jmbrown@ihighway.net At 04:44 AM 9/13/98 -0400, you wrote:
John M. Brown wrote:
Why should they, there is no reason for them to. Personally I wonder what would happen if we (the rest of us) started filtering on /19's or /20's :)
Not to rehash, but there are legitimate reasons to advertise /24's. I'd say that filtering at that level would be reasonable. What bothers me is seeing certain networks advertising an aggregate along with all or most subnetworks. Being flexible with one's downstreams is one thing, irresponsible adverts are another.
But then you take UUNET (Alternet) and for example 207.170.32.0 /19 is advertised as a /19 AND a stack of /24's all with the same AS path and from what I can tell no special routes, at least not via nitrous.digex.net But what do I know, I am a lonely little guy... :)
My point exactly :-)
--
Brian Wallingford Network Operations Manager Meganet Communications, TCIx, Inc.
On Sun, Sep 13, 1998 at 04:44:11AM -0400, Brian Wallingford wrote:
John M. Brown wrote:
Why should they, there is no reason for them to. Personally I wonder what would happen if we (the rest of us) started filtering on /19's or /20's :)
Not to rehash, but there are legitimate reasons to advertise /24's. I'd say that filtering at that level would be reasonable. What bothers me is seeing certain networks advertising an aggregate along with all or most subnetworks. Being flexible with one's downstreams is one thing, irresponsible adverts are another.
I scan the Cidr report weekly as it comes to nanog, and look for particulary bad problems and e-mail their upstreams asking them to filter. uunet is bad at taking care of these, but ANS has been great at filtering people (won't cite the cases) that are their customers and getting them to fix people who appear on the list. I would recommend doing that, if they (The AS contacts) and providers get enough complaints (just like what needed to happen w/ spam), they will do something. - jared
participants (3)
-
Brian Wallingford -
Jared Mauch -
John M. Brown