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@lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz@gmail.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 31 Aug, 2019 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 768323 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 295832 Deaggregation factor: 2.60 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 370810 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 65326 Prefixes per ASN: 11.76 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 56226 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 24072 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 9100 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 269 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.3 Max AS path length visible: 45 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 27978) 31 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 27 Number of instances of unregistered ASNs: 27 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 28444 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 23268 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 105688 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 14 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 288 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2834690304 Equivalent to 168 /8s, 245 /16s and 241 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 76.6 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 76.6 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 99.3 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 257215 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 206838 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 61926 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.34 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 201585 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 84621 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 10000 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 20.16 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 2776 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1483 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.4 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 29 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 5015 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 766769408 Equivalent to 45 /8s, 179 /16s and 249 /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: 226731 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 106033 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.14 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 225420 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 107479 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18534 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 12.16 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 6858 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1891 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.8 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 42 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2875 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1067004160 Equivalent to 63 /8s, 153 /16s and 49 /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: 214997 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 100530 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 2.14 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 211061 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 124404 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 26388 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 8.00 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 11647 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3733 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.3 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 29 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 8422 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 721204480 Equivalent to 42 /8s, 252 /16s and 181 /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: 98760 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 22976 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.30 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 100007 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 44406 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 8802 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 11.36 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 2327 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1620 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 5.2 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 45 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 6356 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 173565184 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 88 /16s and 101 /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: 20969 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 4345 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.83 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 29962 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 9637 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1317 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 22.75 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 464 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 257 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.4 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 27 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 600 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 105899264 Equivalent to 6 /8s, 79 /16s and 229 /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 4947 599 579 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 7552 3248 1459 32 VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Group, VN 45899 3065 1768 114 VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp, VN 9829 2736 1494 547 BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone, IN 9808 2694 9043 63 CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile Communication 4766 2546 11119 763 KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom, KR 7713 2240 680 596 TELKOMNET-AS-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indon 9498 2163 434 209 BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd., IN 4755 2153 442 192 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerl 9394 2076 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 4065 280 25 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE - ViaSat,Inc., US 11492 3652 238 680 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 6327 3477 1324 91 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 22773 3454 2973 156 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communi 16509 3078 6452 1466 AMAZON-02 - Amazon.com, Inc., US 16625 2736 1438 1973 AKAMAI-AS - Akamai Technologies, Inc., 30036 2187 349 175 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS - Mediacom 20115 2145 2762 525 CHARTER-20115 - Charter Communications, 18566 2086 405 105 MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath Corporation, US 5650 2074 3073 1453 FRONTIER-FRTR - Frontier Communications 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 5515 1613 143 UNI2-AS, ES 39891 3780 219 19 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 8551 3311 379 46 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Interne 20940 2726 497 1927 AKAMAI-ASN1, US 31334 2602 484 13 KABELDEUTSCHLAND-AS, DE 12389 2392 2233 691 ROSTELECOM-AS, RU 34984 2127 346 541 TELLCOM-AS, TR 9121 2019 1692 18 TTNET, TR 9009 1736 187 936 M247, GB 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 6254 3360 597 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX 10620 3365 534 450 Telmex Colombia S.A., CO 11830 2692 370 54 Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad 6503 1611 378 415 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V., MX 7303 1480 1024 274 Telecom Argentina S.A., AR 28573 1164 2228 203 CLARO S.A., BR 6147 1105 380 35 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A., PE 3816 1051 534 121 COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S.A. ESP, C 13999 1000 482 248 Mega Cable, S.A. de C.V., MX 11172 936 110 60 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 1120 393 23 LINKdotNET-AS, EG 36992 956 1535 73 ETISALAT-MISR, EG 24835 888 590 21 RAYA-AS, EG 36903 843 424 112 MT-MPLS, MA 8452 672 1859 20 TE-AS TE-AS, EG 29571 527 68 11 ORANGE-COTE-IVOIRE, CI 15399 414 45 11 WANANCHI-, KE 37492 372 470 57 ORANGE-, TN 37342 370 32 1 MOVITEL, MZ 15706 362 32 6 Sudatel, SD 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 6254 3360 597 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX 12479 5515 1613 143 UNI2-AS, ES 7545 4947 599 579 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 7155 4065 280 25 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE - ViaSat,Inc., US 39891 3780 219 19 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 11492 3652 238 680 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 6327 3477 1324 91 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 22773 3454 2973 156 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communi 10620 3365 534 450 Telmex Colombia S.A., CO 8551 3311 379 46 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Interne Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 12479 5515 5372 UNI2-AS, ES 7545 4947 4368 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 7155 4065 4040 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE - ViaSat,Inc., US 39891 3780 3761 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 6327 3477 3386 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 22773 3454 3298 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications 8551 3311 3265 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Internet Backbo 7552 3248 3216 VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Group, VN 11492 3652 2972 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 45899 3065 2951 VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp, VN Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 230105 UNALLOCATED 38.110.79.0/24 23015 CMC180-TOR-AS - Cambridge Merc 260984 UNALLOCATED 45.175.186.0/23 16735 ALGAR TELECOM S/A, BR 266842 UNALLOCATED 45.238.156.0/22 265680 HNTELCO S.A, HN 64511 DOCUMENT 66.154.208.0/21 32522 MULTNOMAH-ESD - Multnomah Educ 64511 DOCUMENT 66.154.216.0/23 32522 MULTNOMAH-ESD - Multnomah Educ 64511 DOCUMENT 66.154.218.0/24 32522 MULTNOMAH-ESD - Multnomah Educ 65550 DOCUMENT 81.8.34.0/24 15924 BORUSANTELEKOM-AS, TR 65550 DOCUMENT 81.8.35.0/24 15924 BORUSANTELEKOM-AS, TR 65549 DOCUMENT 117.239.163.0/24 65544 UNKNOWN 64339 UNALLOCATED 143.0.108.0/22 18747 IFX18747 - IFX Corporation, US Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 27.100.7.0/24 56096 UNKNOWN 27.126.156.0/22 55827 UNKNOWN 27.126.156.0/23 55827 UNKNOWN 27.126.158.0/23 55827 UNKNOWN 41.76.136.0/22 37500 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.76.140.0/22 37500 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.78.180.0/23 37265 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.220.48.0/20 36900 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.242.92.0/24 37643 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.242.93.0/24 37643 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 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 /10:37 /11:98 /12:288 /13:573 /14:1142 /15:1915 /16:13259 /17:7983 /18:13735 /19:25575 /20:40168 /21:47329 /22:95972 /23:77628 /24:441773 /25:827 /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 4475 5515 UNI2-AS, ES 6327 3265 3477 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 7155 3156 4065 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE - ViaSat,Inc., US 39891 2946 3780 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 11492 2865 3652 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 8551 2764 3311 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Internet Backbo 22773 2684 3454 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications 31334 2490 2602 KABELDEUTSCHLAND-AS, DE 11830 2040 2692 Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad y Telec 18566 1981 2086 MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath Corporation, US Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:1744 2:1092 3:6 4:22 5:3026 6:49 7:1 8:1359 9:1 12:1796 13:398 14:2112 15:42 16:7 17:269 18:81 20:56 23:2895 24:2589 25:2 27:2461 31:2711 32:106 35:37 36:906 37:3123 38:1808 39:302 40:121 41:3390 42:820 43:2071 44:173 45:10156 46:3359 47:271 49:1442 50:1103 51:341 52:1041 54:263 55:684 56:6 57:47 58:2054 59:1109 60:580 61:2181 62:1989 63:1848 64:5011 65:2234 66:4816 67:2738 68:1196 69:3573 70:1386 71:670 72:2666 74:2700 75:1291 76:596 77:2524 78:1963 79:2365 80:1816 81:1501 82:1137 83:961 84:1164 85:2356 86:562 87:1562 88:1060 89:2544 90:231 91:6597 92:1444 93:2485 94:2571 95:3639 96:954 97:340 98:951 99:829 100:88 101:944 102:639 103:21930 104:3635 105:281 106:816 107:1790 108:689 109:3751 110:1763 111:2021 112:1536 113:1408 114:1251 115:1722 116:1743 117:1962 118:2214 119:1642 120:1056 121:1039 122:2296 123:1838 124:1529 125:2020 128:1301 129:849 130:536 131:1819 132:747 133:226 134:1079 135:255 136:598 137:794 138:2073 139:939 140:567 141:879 142:773 143:1071 144:893 145:277 146:1334 147:857 148:1785 149:1021 150:820 151:1026 152:1370 153:362 154:4413 155:889 156:2254 157:1050 158:693 159:1934 160:1577 161:950 162:2990 163:827 164:1246 165:1188 166:515 167:1416 168:3467 169:474 170:4186 171:651 172:1711 173:2226 174:1039 175:989 176:2436 177:4043 178:2729 179:1473 180:2146 181:2385 182:2772 183:1115 184:2276 185:15447 186:3720 187:2572 188:3465 189:2068 190:8241 191:1438 192:10105 193:6717 194:5511 195:4193 196:3094 197:1728 198:5938 199:5957 200:7151 201:5173 202:10268 203:10241 204:4532 205:3058 206:3171 207:3231 208:3945 209:4292 210:3893 211:2019 212:3249 213:2955 214:1135 215:54 216:5890 217:2212 218:868 219:599 220:1929 221:972 222:981 223:1364 End of report
A very long time ago, I commented on this report hitting 250,000 prefixes. It was a Big F*#@$&! Deal at the time. A quarter million prefixes in the DFZ? Wow…. Then I did it again at 500,000. People commented that I should have waited for 512,000 - especially since a popular piece of kit was expected to fall over at 512K prefixes. But I said I liked round numbers. This time I waited for 768,000. (Everyone happy now?) To say “the Internet grew more than anyone expected” is beyond cliché these days, but that does not make it any less true. The Internet has transformed from a curiosity into something my son[*] and a good portion of his entire generation cannot conceive of living without. A great many people on this list had a part in making all that happen. Stop and think about that for a second. You had a part in literally changing the world. It is a 3-day weekend in the US. A good time to pause for a few minutes and consider what all of us accomplished together. Pat yourselves on the back, raise a glass or whatever your personal traditions are, and bask in the glory of a job well done. -- TTFN, patrick [*] The fact I can say “my son” is probably even more amazing. But that is a different story.
On Aug 30, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Routing Analysis Role Account <cscora@apnic.net> wrote:
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@lists.apnic.net
For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net.
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz@gmail.com>.
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 31 Aug, 2019
Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/
Analysis Summary ----------------
BGP routing table entries examined: 768323 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 295832 Deaggregation factor: 2.60 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 370810 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 65326 Prefixes per ASN: 11.76 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 56226 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 24072 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 9100 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 269 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.3 Max AS path length visible: 45 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 27978) 31 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 27 Number of instances of unregistered ASNs: 27 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 28444 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 23268 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 105688 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 14 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 288 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2834690304 Equivalent to 168 /8s, 245 /16s and 241 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 76.6 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 76.6 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 99.3 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 257215
APNIC Region Analysis Summary -----------------------------
Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 206838 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 61926 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.34 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 201585 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 84621 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 10000 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 20.16 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 2776 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1483 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.4 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 29 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 5015 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 766769408 Equivalent to 45 /8s, 179 /16s and 249 /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: 226731 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 106033 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.14 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 225420 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 107479 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18534 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 12.16 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 6858 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1891 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.8 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 42 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2875 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1067004160 Equivalent to 63 /8s, 153 /16s and 49 /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: 214997 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 100530 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 2.14 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 211061 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 124404 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 26388 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 8.00 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 11647 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3733 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.3 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 29 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 8422 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 721204480 Equivalent to 42 /8s, 252 /16s and 181 /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: 98760 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 22976 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.30 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 100007 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 44406 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 8802 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 11.36 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 2327 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1620 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 5.2 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 45 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 6356 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 173565184 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 88 /16s and 101 /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: 20969 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 4345 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.83 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 29962 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 9637 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1317 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 22.75 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 464 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 257 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.4 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 27 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 600 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 105899264 Equivalent to 6 /8s, 79 /16s and 229 /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 4947 599 579 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 7552 3248 1459 32 VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Group, VN 45899 3065 1768 114 VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp, VN 9829 2736 1494 547 BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone, IN 9808 2694 9043 63 CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile Communication 4766 2546 11119 763 KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom, KR 7713 2240 680 596 TELKOMNET-AS-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indon 9498 2163 434 209 BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd., IN 4755 2153 442 192 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerl 9394 2076 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 4065 280 25 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE - ViaSat,Inc., US 11492 3652 238 680 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 6327 3477 1324 91 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 22773 3454 2973 156 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communi 16509 3078 6452 1466 AMAZON-02 - Amazon.com, Inc., US 16625 2736 1438 1973 AKAMAI-AS - Akamai Technologies, Inc., 30036 2187 349 175 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS - Mediacom 20115 2145 2762 525 CHARTER-20115 - Charter Communications, 18566 2086 405 105 MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath Corporation, US 5650 2074 3073 1453 FRONTIER-FRTR - Frontier Communications
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 5515 1613 143 UNI2-AS, ES 39891 3780 219 19 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 8551 3311 379 46 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Interne 20940 2726 497 1927 AKAMAI-ASN1, US 31334 2602 484 13 KABELDEUTSCHLAND-AS, DE 12389 2392 2233 691 ROSTELECOM-AS, RU 34984 2127 346 541 TELLCOM-AS, TR 9121 2019 1692 18 TTNET, TR 9009 1736 187 936 M247, GB 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 6254 3360 597 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX 10620 3365 534 450 Telmex Colombia S.A., CO 11830 2692 370 54 Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad 6503 1611 378 415 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V., MX 7303 1480 1024 274 Telecom Argentina S.A., AR 28573 1164 2228 203 CLARO S.A., BR 6147 1105 380 35 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A., PE 3816 1051 534 121 COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S.A. ESP, C 13999 1000 482 248 Mega Cable, S.A. de C.V., MX 11172 936 110 60 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 1120 393 23 LINKdotNET-AS, EG 36992 956 1535 73 ETISALAT-MISR, EG 24835 888 590 21 RAYA-AS, EG 36903 843 424 112 MT-MPLS, MA 8452 672 1859 20 TE-AS TE-AS, EG 29571 527 68 11 ORANGE-COTE-IVOIRE, CI 15399 414 45 11 WANANCHI-, KE 37492 372 470 57 ORANGE-, TN 37342 370 32 1 MOVITEL, MZ 15706 362 32 6 Sudatel, SD
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 6254 3360 597 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX 12479 5515 1613 143 UNI2-AS, ES 7545 4947 599 579 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 7155 4065 280 25 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE - ViaSat,Inc., US 39891 3780 219 19 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 11492 3652 238 680 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 6327 3477 1324 91 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 22773 3454 2973 156 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communi 10620 3365 534 450 Telmex Colombia S.A., CO 8551 3311 379 46 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Interne
Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet
Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ----------------------------------
ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 12479 5515 5372 UNI2-AS, ES 7545 4947 4368 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 7155 4065 4040 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE - ViaSat,Inc., US 39891 3780 3761 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 6327 3477 3386 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 22773 3454 3298 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications 8551 3311 3265 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Internet Backbo 7552 3248 3216 VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Group, VN 11492 3652 2972 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 45899 3065 2951 VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp, VN
Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet
List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) -----------------------------------------
Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 230105 UNALLOCATED 38.110.79.0/24 23015 CMC180-TOR-AS - Cambridge Merc 260984 UNALLOCATED 45.175.186.0/23 16735 ALGAR TELECOM S/A, BR 266842 UNALLOCATED 45.238.156.0/22 265680 HNTELCO S.A, HN 64511 DOCUMENT 66.154.208.0/21 32522 MULTNOMAH-ESD - Multnomah Educ 64511 DOCUMENT 66.154.216.0/23 32522 MULTNOMAH-ESD - Multnomah Educ 64511 DOCUMENT 66.154.218.0/24 32522 MULTNOMAH-ESD - Multnomah Educ 65550 DOCUMENT 81.8.34.0/24 15924 BORUSANTELEKOM-AS, TR 65550 DOCUMENT 81.8.35.0/24 15924 BORUSANTELEKOM-AS, TR 65549 DOCUMENT 117.239.163.0/24 65544 UNKNOWN 64339 UNALLOCATED 143.0.108.0/22 18747 IFX18747 - IFX Corporation, US
Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS
Advertised Unallocated Addresses --------------------------------
Network Origin AS Description 27.100.7.0/24 56096 UNKNOWN 27.126.156.0/22 55827 UNKNOWN 27.126.156.0/23 55827 UNKNOWN 27.126.158.0/23 55827 UNKNOWN 41.76.136.0/22 37500 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.76.140.0/22 37500 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.78.180.0/23 37265 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.220.48.0/20 36900 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.242.92.0/24 37643 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.242.93.0/24 37643 -Reserved AS-, ZZ
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 /10:37 /11:98 /12:288 /13:573 /14:1142 /15:1915 /16:13259 /17:7983 /18:13735 /19:25575 /20:40168 /21:47329 /22:95972 /23:77628 /24:441773 /25:827 /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 4475 5515 UNI2-AS, ES 6327 3265 3477 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 7155 3156 4065 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE - ViaSat,Inc., US 39891 2946 3780 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 11492 2865 3652 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 8551 2764 3311 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Internet Backbo 22773 2684 3454 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications 31334 2490 2602 KABELDEUTSCHLAND-AS, DE 11830 2040 2692 Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad y Telec 18566 1981 2086 MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath Corporation, US
Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos
Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ----------------------------------------------
1:1744 2:1092 3:6 4:22 5:3026 6:49 7:1 8:1359 9:1 12:1796 13:398 14:2112 15:42 16:7 17:269 18:81 20:56 23:2895 24:2589 25:2 27:2461 31:2711 32:106 35:37 36:906 37:3123 38:1808 39:302 40:121 41:3390 42:820 43:2071 44:173 45:10156 46:3359 47:271 49:1442 50:1103 51:341 52:1041 54:263 55:684 56:6 57:47 58:2054 59:1109 60:580 61:2181 62:1989 63:1848 64:5011 65:2234 66:4816 67:2738 68:1196 69:3573 70:1386 71:670 72:2666 74:2700 75:1291 76:596 77:2524 78:1963 79:2365 80:1816 81:1501 82:1137 83:961 84:1164 85:2356 86:562 87:1562 88:1060 89:2544 90:231 91:6597 92:1444 93:2485 94:2571 95:3639 96:954 97:340 98:951 99:829 100:88 101:944 102:639 103:21930 104:3635 105:281 106:816 107:1790 108:689 109:3751 110:1763 111:2021 112:1536 113:1408 114:1251 115:1722 116:1743 117:1962 118:2214 119:1642 120:1056 121:1039 122:2296 123:1838 124:1529 125:2020 128:1301 129:849 130:536 131:1819 132:747 133:226 134:1079 135:255 136:598 137:794 138:2073 139:939 140:567 141:879 142:773 143:1071 144:893 145:277 146:1334 147:857 148:1785 149:1021 150:820 151:1026 152:1370 153:362 154:4413 155:889 156:2254 157:1050 158:693 159:1934 160:1577 161:950 162:2990 163:827 164:1246 165:1188 166:515 167:1416 168:3467 169:474 170:4186 171:651 172:1711 173:2226 174:1039 175:989 176:2436 177:4043 178:2729 179:1473 180:2146 181:2385 182:2772 183:1115 184:2276 185:15447 186:3720 187:2572 188:3465 189:2068 190:8241 191:1438 192:10105 193:6717 194:5511 195:4193 196:3094 197:1728 198:5938 199:5957 200:7151 201:5173 202:10268 203:10241 204:4532 205:3058 206:3171 207:3231 208:3945 209:4292 210:3893 211:2019 212:3249 213:2955 214:1135 215:54 216:5890 217:2212 218:868 219:599 220:1929 221:972 222:981 223:1364
End of report
These numbers are nothing. Wait till IPv6 really start taking off. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 3:09 PM To: North American Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Weekly Routing Table Report A very long time ago, I commented on this report hitting 250,000 prefixes. It was a Big F*#@$&! Deal at the time. A quarter million prefixes in the DFZ? Wow…. Then I did it again at 500,000. People commented that I should have waited for 512,000 - especially since a popular piece of kit was expected to fall over at 512K prefixes. But I said I liked round numbers. This time I waited for 768,000. (Everyone happy now?) To say “the Internet grew more than anyone expected” is beyond cliché these days, but that does not make it any less true. The Internet has transformed from a curiosity into something my son[*] and a good portion of his entire generation cannot conceive of living without. A great many people on this list had a part in making all that happen. Stop and think about that for a second. You had a part in literally changing the world. It is a 3-day weekend in the US. A good time to pause for a few minutes and consider what all of us accomplished together. Pat yourselves on the back, raise a glass or whatever your personal traditions are, and bask in the glory of a job well done. -- TTFN, patrick [*] The fact I can say “my son” is probably even more amazing. But that is a different story.
On Aug 30, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Routing Analysis Role Account <cscora@apnic.net> wrote:
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@lists.apnic.net
For historical data, please see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.net&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s=RDK_n-hawo1IaJSf4Q6HI-XszJ3Y2nqjqJIcsPf3tcY&e= .
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz@gmail.com>.
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 31 Aug, 2019
Report Website: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.net&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s=RDK_n-hawo1IaJSf4Q6HI-XszJ3Y2nqjqJIcsPf3tcY&e= Detailed Analysis: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.n et_current_&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpk Dj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s= 1SzKtCXB1OQXt_kKzDwHmtLE8a44hKEkYUtraUzC3gI&e=
Analysis Summary ----------------
BGP routing table entries examined: 768323 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 295832 Deaggregation factor: 2.60 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 370810 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 65326 Prefixes per ASN: 11.76 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 56226 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 24072 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 9100 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 269 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.3 Max AS path length visible: 45 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 27978) 31 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 27 Number of instances of unregistered ASNs: 27 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 28444 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 23268 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 105688 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 14 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 288 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2834690304 Equivalent to 168 /8s, 245 /16s and 241 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 76.6 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 76.6 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 99.3 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 257215
APNIC Region Analysis Summary -----------------------------
Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 206838 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 61926 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.34 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 201585 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 84621 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 10000 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 20.16 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 2776 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1483 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.4 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 29 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 5015 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 766769408 Equivalent to 45 /8s, 179 /16s and 249 /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: 226731 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 106033 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.14 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 225420 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 107479 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18534 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 12.16 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 6858 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1891 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.8 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 42 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2875 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1067004160 Equivalent to 63 /8s, 153 /16s and 49 /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: 214997 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 100530 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 2.14 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 211061 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 124404 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 26388 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 8.00 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 11647 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3733 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.3 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 29 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 8422 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 721204480 Equivalent to 42 /8s, 252 /16s and 181 /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: 98760 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 22976 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.30 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 100007 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 44406 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 8802 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 11.36 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 2327 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1620 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 5.2 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 45 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 6356 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 173565184 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 88 /16s and 101 /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: 20969 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 4345 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.83 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 29962 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 9637 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1317 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 22.75 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 464 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 257 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.4 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 27 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 600 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 105899264 Equivalent to 6 /8s, 79 /16s and 229 /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 4947 599 579 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 7552 3248 1459 32 VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Group, VN 45899 3065 1768 114 VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp, VN 9829 2736 1494 547 BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone, IN 9808 2694 9043 63 CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile Communication 4766 2546 11119 763 KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom, KR 7713 2240 680 596 TELKOMNET-AS-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indon 9498 2163 434 209 BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd., IN 4755 2153 442 192 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerl 9394 2076 4898 24 CTTNET China TieTong Telecommunications
Complete listing at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.n et_current_data-2DASnet-2DAPNIC&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c 7AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSf vn9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s=PbRZ5sxJfmYfAn4HtffRzZaO3u_8OJhRNEDtacBry8U&e=
ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------
ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 7155 4065 280 25 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE - ViaSat,Inc., US 11492 3652 238 680 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 6327 3477 1324 91 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 22773 3454 2973 156 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communi 16509 3078 6452 1466 AMAZON-02 - Amazon.com, Inc., US 16625 2736 1438 1973 AKAMAI-AS - Akamai Technologies, Inc., 30036 2187 349 175 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS - Mediacom 20115 2145 2762 525 CHARTER-20115 - Charter Communications, 18566 2086 405 105 MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath Corporation, US 5650 2074 3073 1453 FRONTIER-FRTR - Frontier Communications
Complete listing at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.n et_current_data-2DASnet-2DARIN&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7 AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfv n9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s=CIzncYDw8a-DnoxhUAp7DWUjNn2IX6V3M86i77lM_m0&e=
RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------
ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 12479 5515 1613 143 UNI2-AS, ES 39891 3780 219 19 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 8551 3311 379 46 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Interne 20940 2726 497 1927 AKAMAI-ASN1, US 31334 2602 484 13 KABELDEUTSCHLAND-AS, DE 12389 2392 2233 691 ROSTELECOM-AS, RU 34984 2127 346 541 TELLCOM-AS, TR 9121 2019 1692 18 TTNET, TR 9009 1736 187 936 M247, GB 13188 1604 100 47 TRIOLAN, UA
Complete listing at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.n et_current_data-2DASnet-2DRIPE&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7 AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfv n9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s=uDvo14UbVZn0YyC6NlsLxcOaOYndnJvTWpBXOzpBVZo&e=
LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary -----------------------------------------
ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 6254 3360 597 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX 10620 3365 534 450 Telmex Colombia S.A., CO 11830 2692 370 54 Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad 6503 1611 378 415 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V., MX 7303 1480 1024 274 Telecom Argentina S.A., AR 28573 1164 2228 203 CLARO S.A., BR 6147 1105 380 35 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A., PE 3816 1051 534 121 COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S.A. ESP, C 13999 1000 482 248 Mega Cable, S.A. de C.V., MX 11172 936 110 60 Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V., MX
Complete listing at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.n et_current_data-2DASnet-2DLACNIC&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7 c7AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVS fvn9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s=Ftwh_dibDvvukWgmiQyjKpuLa1D7Bi6uPivsQenVhxg&e=
AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------
ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 24863 1120 393 23 LINKdotNET-AS, EG 36992 956 1535 73 ETISALAT-MISR, EG 24835 888 590 21 RAYA-AS, EG 36903 843 424 112 MT-MPLS, MA 8452 672 1859 20 TE-AS TE-AS, EG 29571 527 68 11 ORANGE-COTE-IVOIRE, CI 15399 414 45 11 WANANCHI-, KE 37492 372 470 57 ORANGE-, TN 37342 370 32 1 MOVITEL, MZ 15706 362 32 6 Sudatel, SD
Complete listing at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.n et_current_data-2DASnet-2DAFRINIC&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r= 7c7AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUV Sfvn9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s=MaAFFJRgHsRzNLwOQOsdWeIcWNX2_SXT9wbvje-WYwQ&e=
Global Per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------
ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 6254 3360 597 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX 12479 5515 1613 143 UNI2-AS, ES 7545 4947 599 579 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 7155 4065 280 25 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE - ViaSat,Inc., US 39891 3780 219 19 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 11492 3652 238 680 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 6327 3477 1324 91 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 22773 3454 2973 156 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communi 10620 3365 534 450 Telmex Colombia S.A., CO 8551 3311 379 46 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Interne
Complete listing at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.n et_current_data-2DASnet&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7AjRoUVc wQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn9V7rEB txr4BhRDk&s=Ubo-mm8x9JieVKsZ4kCdiBNczmeQv_lE71J_lT6zH7Y&e=
Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ----------------------------------
ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 12479 5515 5372 UNI2-AS, ES 7545 4947 4368 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 7155 4065 4040 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE - ViaSat,Inc., US 39891 3780 3761 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 6327 3477 3386 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 22773 3454 3298 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications 8551 3311 3265 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Internet Backbo 7552 3248 3216 VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Group, VN 11492 3652 2972 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 45899 3065 2951 VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp, VN
Complete listing at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.n et_current_data-2DCIDRnet&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7AjRoU VcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn9V7r EBtxr4BhRDk&s=StsK1OcWFCXFDPmtA2zpqpiZK3VJGBvDvHsuCubppso&e=
List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) -----------------------------------------
Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 230105 UNALLOCATED 38.110.79.0/24 23015 CMC180-TOR-AS - Cambridge Merc 260984 UNALLOCATED 45.175.186.0/23 16735 ALGAR TELECOM S/A, BR 266842 UNALLOCATED 45.238.156.0/22 265680 HNTELCO S.A, HN 64511 DOCUMENT 66.154.208.0/21 32522 MULTNOMAH-ESD - Multnomah Educ 64511 DOCUMENT 66.154.216.0/23 32522 MULTNOMAH-ESD - Multnomah Educ 64511 DOCUMENT 66.154.218.0/24 32522 MULTNOMAH-ESD - Multnomah Educ 65550 DOCUMENT 81.8.34.0/24 15924 BORUSANTELEKOM-AS, TR 65550 DOCUMENT 81.8.35.0/24 15924 BORUSANTELEKOM-AS, TR 65549 DOCUMENT 117.239.163.0/24 65544 UNKNOWN 64339 UNALLOCATED 143.0.108.0/22 18747 IFX18747 - IFX Corporation, US
Complete listing at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.n et_current_data-2DbadAS&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7AjRoUVc wQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn9V7rEB txr4BhRDk&s=TiNvVceST9lHboIdLVqnl8Au2aXTDShRHMdl-Zhrhgg&e=
Advertised Unallocated Addresses --------------------------------
Network Origin AS Description 27.100.7.0/24 56096 UNKNOWN 27.126.156.0/22 55827 UNKNOWN 27.126.156.0/23 55827 UNKNOWN 27.126.158.0/23 55827 UNKNOWN 41.76.136.0/22 37500 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.76.140.0/22 37500 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.78.180.0/23 37265 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.220.48.0/20 36900 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.242.92.0/24 37643 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.242.93.0/24 37643 -Reserved AS-, ZZ
Complete listing at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.n et_current_data-2Dadd-2DIANA&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7Aj RoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn9 V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s=xLoG6gYbxBgRhNQtals5P8X769TNtK4-upYQN-dCIWU&e=
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 /10:37 /11:98 /12:288 /13:573 /14:1142 /15:1915 /16:13259 /17:7983 /18:13735 /19:25575 /20:40168 /21:47329 /22:95972 /23:77628 /24:441773 /25:827 /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 4475 5515 UNI2-AS, ES 6327 3265 3477 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 7155 3156 4065 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE - ViaSat,Inc., US 39891 2946 3780 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 11492 2865 3652 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 8551 2764 3311 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Internet Backbo 22773 2684 3454 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications 31334 2490 2602 KABELDEUTSCHLAND-AS, DE 11830 2040 2692 Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad y Telec 18566 1981 2086 MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath Corporation, US
Complete listing at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.n et_current_data-2DsXXas-2Dnos&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7A jRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn 9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s=dIa10iqLN2fMwZSDIx7DJ1Ru6IxNJV2klsC1oDwrEuo&e=
Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ----------------------------------------------
1:1744 2:1092 3:6 4:22 5:3026 6:49 7:1 8:1359 9:1 12:1796 13:398 14:2112 15:42 16:7 17:269 18:81 20:56 23:2895 24:2589 25:2 27:2461 31:2711 32:106 35:37 36:906 37:3123 38:1808 39:302 40:121 41:3390 42:820 43:2071 44:173 45:10156 46:3359 47:271 49:1442 50:1103 51:341 52:1041 54:263 55:684 56:6 57:47 58:2054 59:1109 60:580 61:2181 62:1989 63:1848 64:5011 65:2234 66:4816 67:2738 68:1196 69:3573 70:1386 71:670 72:2666 74:2700 75:1291 76:596 77:2524 78:1963 79:2365 80:1816 81:1501 82:1137 83:961 84:1164 85:2356 86:562 87:1562 88:1060 89:2544 90:231 91:6597 92:1444 93:2485 94:2571 95:3639 96:954 97:340 98:951 99:829 100:88 101:944 102:639 103:21930 104:3635 105:281 106:816 107:1790 108:689 109:3751 110:1763 111:2021 112:1536 113:1408 114:1251 115:1722 116:1743 117:1962 118:2214 119:1642 120:1056 121:1039 122:2296 123:1838 124:1529 125:2020 128:1301 129:849 130:536 131:1819 132:747 133:226 134:1079 135:255 136:598 137:794 138:2073 139:939 140:567 141:879 142:773 143:1071 144:893 145:277 146:1334 147:857 148:1785 149:1021 150:820 151:1026 152:1370 153:362 154:4413 155:889 156:2254 157:1050 158:693 159:1934 160:1577 161:950 162:2990 163:827 164:1246 165:1188 166:515 167:1416 168:3467 169:474 170:4186 171:651 172:1711 173:2226 174:1039 175:989 176:2436 177:4043 178:2729 179:1473 180:2146 181:2385 182:2772 183:1115 184:2276 185:15447 186:3720 187:2572 188:3465 189:2068 190:8241 191:1438 192:10105 193:6717 194:5511 195:4193 196:3094 197:1728 198:5938 199:5957 200:7151 201:5173 202:10268 203:10241 204:4532 205:3058 206:3171 207:3231 208:3945 209:4292 210:3893 211:2019 212:3249 213:2955 214:1135 215:54 216:5890 217:2212 218:868 219:599 220:1929 221:972 222:981 223:1364
End of report
The hope is the v6 DFZ will not grow nearly as fast because of far less fragmentation. But who knows? Also, even today TCAM ain’t cheap. Let’s hope it those numbers are not “nothing”. -- TTFN, patrick
On Aug 30, 2019, at 4:33 PM, Romeo Czumbil <Romeo.Czumbil@tierpoint.com <mailto:Romeo.Czumbil@tierpoint.com>> wrote:
These numbers are nothing. Wait till IPv6 really start taking off.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org <mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org>> On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 3:09 PM To: North American Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: Re: Weekly Routing Table Report
A very long time ago, I commented on this report hitting 250,000 prefixes. It was a Big F*#@$&! Deal at the time. A quarter million prefixes in the DFZ? Wow….
Then I did it again at 500,000. People commented that I should have waited for 512,000 - especially since a popular piece of kit was expected to fall over at 512K prefixes. But I said I liked round numbers.
This time I waited for 768,000. (Everyone happy now?)
To say “the Internet grew more than anyone expected” is beyond cliché these days, but that does not make it any less true. The Internet has transformed from a curiosity into something my son[*] and a good portion of his entire generation cannot conceive of living without. A great many people on this list had a part in making all that happen.
Stop and think about that for a second. You had a part in literally changing the world.
It is a 3-day weekend in the US. A good time to pause for a few minutes and consider what all of us accomplished together. Pat yourselves on the back, raise a glass or whatever your personal traditions are, and bask in the glory of a job well done.
-- TTFN, patrick
[*] The fact I can say “my son” is probably even more amazing. But that is a different story.
On Aug 30, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Routing Analysis Role Account <cscora@apnic.net <mailto:cscora@apnic.net>> wrote:
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@lists.apnic.net <mailto:bgp-stats@lists.apnic.net>
For historical data, please see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.net&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s=RDK_n-hawo1IaJSf4Q6HI-XszJ3Y2nqjqJIcsPf3tcY&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.net&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s=RDK_n-hawo1IaJSf4Q6HI-XszJ3Y2nqjqJIcsPf3tcY&e=> .
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz@gmail.com <mailto:pfsinoz@gmail.com>>.
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 31 Aug, 2019
Report Website: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.net&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s=RDK_n-hawo1IaJSf4Q6HI-XszJ3Y2nqjqJIcsPf3tcY&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.net&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s=RDK_n-hawo1IaJSf4Q6HI-XszJ3Y2nqjqJIcsPf3tcY&e=> Detailed Analysis: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.n <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.n> et_current_&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpk Dj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s= 1SzKtCXB1OQXt_kKzDwHmtLE8a44hKEkYUtraUzC3gI&e=
Analysis Summary ----------------
BGP routing table entries examined: 768323 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 295832 Deaggregation factor: 2.60 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 370810 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 65326 Prefixes per ASN: 11.76 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 56226 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 24072 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 9100 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 269 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.3 Max AS path length visible: 45 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 27978) 31 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 27 Number of instances of unregistered ASNs: 27 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 28444 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 23268 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 105688 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 14 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 288 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2834690304 Equivalent to 168 /8s, 245 /16s and 241 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 76.6 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 76.6 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 99.3 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 257215
[…]
It doesn't bode well with deaggregation in IPv6 going down to the /48 in places I see it happen. A large chunk of the /48s out there are from /32s. If that carries on, we'll have to be more afraid then I remember us being at 30k IPv4 prefixes, 100k IPv4 prefixes, etc. :-( Actually when I started doing this back in early 1999, it was to supplement with a regional view of what Tony Bates was producing in the CIDR Report. Sloppy code on my part back then as we didn't have "too many prefixes". Didn't think I'd be doing this still, and have had to sort the code many times since too. :-) philip -- Patrick W. Gilmore wrote on 31/8/19 06:40 :
The hope is the v6 DFZ will not grow nearly as fast because of far less fragmentation.
But who knows?
Also, even today TCAM ain’t cheap. Let’s hope it those numbers are not “nothing”.
-- TTFN, patrick
On Aug 30, 2019, at 4:33 PM, Romeo Czumbil <Romeo.Czumbil@tierpoint.com <mailto:Romeo.Czumbil@tierpoint.com>> wrote:
These numbers are nothing. Wait till IPv6 really start taking off.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org <mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org>> On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore Sent: Friday, August 30, 2019 3:09 PM To: North American Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: Re: Weekly Routing Table Report
A very long time ago, I commented on this report hitting 250,000 prefixes. It was a Big F*#@$&! Deal at the time. A quarter million prefixes in the DFZ? Wow….
Then I did it again at 500,000. People commented that I should have waited for 512,000 - especially since a popular piece of kit was expected to fall over at 512K prefixes. But I said I liked round numbers.
This time I waited for 768,000. (Everyone happy now?)
To say “the Internet grew more than anyone expected” is beyond cliché these days, but that does not make it any less true. The Internet has transformed from a curiosity into something my son[*] and a good portion of his entire generation cannot conceive of living without. A great many people on this list had a part in making all that happen.
Stop and think about that for a second. You had a part in literally changing the world.
It is a 3-day weekend in the US. A good time to pause for a few minutes and consider what all of us accomplished together. Pat yourselves on the back, raise a glass or whatever your personal traditions are, and bask in the glory of a job well done.
-- TTFN, patrick
[*] The fact I can say “my son” is probably even more amazing. But that is a different story.
On Aug 30, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Routing Analysis Role Account <cscora@apnic.net <mailto:cscora@apnic.net>> wrote:
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@lists.apnic.net <mailto:bgp-stats@lists.apnic.net>
For historical data, please see https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.net&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s=RDK_n-hawo1IaJSf4Q6HI-XszJ3Y2nqjqJIcsPf3tcY&e= .
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz@gmail.com <mailto:pfsinoz@gmail.com>>.
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 31 Aug, 2019
Report Website: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.net&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpkDj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s=RDK_n-hawo1IaJSf4Q6HI-XszJ3Y2nqjqJIcsPf3tcY&e= Detailed Analysis: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__thyme.rand.apnic.n et_current_&d=DwIFaQ&c=QbKJOwLIrSFJ6b5qo-Piqw&r=7c7AjRoUVcwQLzf0TJlbpk Dj0XZUiEY9edXj7_CVNLE&m=maFjVIkqOPdUWLkdE4FI1RUVSfvn9V7rEBtxr4BhRDk&s= 1SzKtCXB1OQXt_kKzDwHmtLE8a44hKEkYUtraUzC3gI&e=
Analysis Summary ----------------
BGP routing table entries examined: 768323 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 295832 Deaggregation factor: 2.60 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 370810 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 65326 Prefixes per ASN: 11.76 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 56226 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 24072 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 9100 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 269 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.3 Max AS path length visible: 45 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 27978) 31 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 27 Number of instances of unregistered ASNs: 27 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 28444 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 23268 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 105688 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 14 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 288 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2834690304 Equivalent to 168 /8s, 245 /16s and 241 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 76.6 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 76.6 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 99.3 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 257215
[…]
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The hope is the v6 DFZ will not grow nearly as fast because of far less fragmentation.
As the problem is caused by multihomed sites (including ISPs), there is no such hope. With the current way of multihoming to compute available routes to multihomed sites by global routing system, the load, including routing table size, to the global routing system increases at least linearly to the number of multihomed sites. Some people was aware of the problem when the size was 50,000. With the current routing practice, the number will increase to 14M with IPv4 and a lot more than that with IPv6. The solution is: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-03 but IETF is working on stupid things like LISP only to increase load to the global routing system.
Also, even today TCAM ain’t cheap. Let’s hope it those numbers are not "nothing".
The problem is serious especially because Moore's law is ending. Masataka Ohta
On Aug 30, 2019, at 20:04 , Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The hope is the v6 DFZ will not grow nearly as fast because of far less fragmentation.
As the problem is caused by multihomed sites (including ISPs), there is no such hope.
Part of the problem is caused by multi homed sites. Much more of the problem is actually caused by organizations needing multiple prefixes acquired over time through IPv4 slow start and other similar rationing mechanisms deployed to try and create a fair allocation strategy in light of IPv4 scarcity. Consider, for example AS7922 which originates the following 124 prefixes according to route-views: 23.7.80.0/20 23.24.0.0/15 23.30.0.0/15 23.33.186.0/24 23.40.176.0/20 23.41.0.0/20 23.49.56.0/24 23.58.92.0/24 23.67.49.0/24 23.68.0.0/14 23.194.116.0/22 23.213.134.0/23 23.217.129.0/24 24.0.0.0/12 24.16.0.0/13 24.30.0.0/17 24.34.0.0/16 24.40.0.0/18 24.40.64.0/20 24.60.0.0/14 24.91.0.0/16 24.98.0.0/15 24.104.0.0/17 24.104.128.0/19 24.118.0.0/16 24.124.128.0/17 24.125.0.0/16 24.126.0.0/15 24.128.0.0/16 24.129.0.0/17 24.130.0.0/15 24.147.0.0/16 24.153.64.0/19 24.218.0.0/16 24.245.0.0/18 50.73.0.0/16 50.76.0.0/14 50.128.0.0/9 50.227.16.0/22 50.227.20.0/22 64.56.32.0/19 64.139.64.0/19 65.34.128.0/17 65.96.0.0/16 66.30.0.0/15 66.41.0.0/16 66.56.0.0/18 66.176.0.0/15 66.208.192.0/18 66.229.0.0/16 66.240.0.0/18 67.160.0.0/11 68.32.0.0/11 68.80.0.0/13 68.86.80.0/20 69.136.0.0/13 69.180.0.0/15 69.240.0.0/12 70.88.0.0/14 71.24.0.0/14 71.56.0.0/13 71.192.0.0/12 71.224.0.0/12 72.55.0.0/17 72.247.190.0/24 74.16.0.0/12 74.92.0.0/14 74.144.0.0/12 75.64.0.0/13 75.72.0.0/15 75.74.0.0/16 75.75.0.0/17 75.75.128.0/18 75.144.0.0/13 76.16.0.0/12 76.96.0.0/11 76.128.0.0/11 96.6.80.0/20 96.17.145.0/24 96.17.164.0/24 96.17.165.0/24 96.17.166.0/24 96.64.0.0/11 96.96.0.0/12 96.112.0.0/13 96.120.0.0/14 96.124.0.0/16 96.128.0.0/10 96.192.0.0/11 98.32.0.0/11 98.192.0.0/10 104.69.216.0/22 104.69.220.0/23 104.70.48.0/20 104.70.64.0/20 104.70.178.0/24 104.77.121.0/24 104.77.150.0/24 104.109.53.0/24 107.0.0.0/14 107.4.0.0/15 162.148.0.0/14 173.8.0.0/13 173.160.0.0/13 173.222.176.0/22 174.48.0.0/12 174.160.0.0/11 184.25.157.0/24 184.28.64.0/23 184.28.68.0/23 184.28.117.0/24 184.51.52.0/22 184.51.207.0/24 184.86.251.0/24 184.108.0.0/14 184.112.0.0/12 198.0.0.0/16 198.137.252.0/23 198.178.8.0/21 204.11.116.0/22 208.39.128.0/18 209.23.192.0/22 209.23.192.0/18 216.45.128.0/17 A quick scan didn’t reveal significant overlap or even a lot of adjacent prefixes. As such, I don’t think you can blame multihoming or TE for this, but, rather organic customer growth and RIR applications over time. That’s the kind of prefix growth we should be able to mostly avoid in IPv6 that is rather rampant in IPv4.
With the current way of multihoming to compute available routes to multihomed sites by global routing system, the load, including routing table size, to the global routing system increases at least linearly to the number of multihomed sites.
Sure, but the number of multi homed sites is way _WAY_ less than the IPv4 routing table size.
Some people was aware of the problem when the size was 50,000.
When the size was 50,000, that was the primary source of the problem. Today, long prefixes issued due to scarcity constitute a much larger fraction of the problem than multi homed sites originating single prefixes.
With the current routing practice, the number will increase to 14M with IPv4 and a lot more than that with IPv6.
I’m curious as to why you think that the number is bounded at 14M for IPv4 and why you think there will be so many more multi homed sites in IPv6?
The solution is:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-03
but IETF is working on stupid things like LISP only to increase load to the global routing system.
Not that you’d be prejudiced in favor of your own draft or anything.
Also, even today TCAM ain’t cheap. Let’s hope it those numbers are not "nothing".
The problem is serious especially because Moore's law is ending.
People have been claiming that Moore’s law is at an end longer than we have been pushing for IPv6 deployment. TCAM ain’t cheap, but it’s also not the only solution to the problem and solutions are getting cheaper (per prefix) over time. Owen
Owen DeLong wrote:
Consider, for example AS7922
COMCAST is not a good example.
but, rather organic customer growth and RIR applications over time.
No, if you know theory and practice of how additional address ranges are allocated as a result of growth, you could have noticed that the large number of prefixes of COMCAST should mostly be a result of mergers, where merged parts won't renumber their hosts.
That’s the kind of prefix growth we should be able to mostly avoid in IPv6 that is rather rampant in IPv4.
Without automatic renumbering, IPv6 is of no help against mergers.
Sure, but the number of multi homed sites is way _WAY_ less than the IPv4 routing table size.
The following page by Geoff Huston is better than your delusion. http://www.potaroo.net/ispcolumn/2001-03-bgp.html What is driving this recent change to exponential growth of the routing table? In a word, multi-homing.
With the current routing practice, the number will increase to 14M with IPv4 and a lot more than that with IPv6.
I’m curious as to why you think that the number is bounded at 14M for IPv4 and why you think there will be so many more multi homed sites in IPv6?
I don't think I must explain the current routing practice here.
The problem is serious especially because Moore's law is ending.
People have been claiming that Moore's law is at an end longer than we have been pushing for IPv6 deployment.
I'm afraid you are not very familiar with semiconductor technology trend. Masataka Ohta
On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 18:51:16 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
Owen DeLong wrote:
With the current routing practice, the number will increase to 14M with IPv4 and a lot more than that with IPv6.
I$B!G(Bm curious as to why you think that the number is bounded at 14M fo r IPv4 and why you think there will be so many more multi homed sites in IPv6?
I don't think I must explain the current routing practice here.
Actually, maybe you *should* explain how it will grow to 14M IPv4 routes. Are there 13 million /24s still out there to be allocated? Where will these routes come from?
On Aug 31, 2019, at 02:51 , Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
Consider, for example AS7922
COMCAST is not a good example.
It seemed as good as any… Also, note that many of the Comcast mergers ended up in other Comcast ASNs, possibly not changing ASNs either? However, since you don’t like Comcast, let’s try another one that has few (if any) mergers involved: AS6939 — 125 prefixes... 5.152.177.0/24 5.152.179.0/24 5.152.181.0/24 5.152.182.0/24 5.152.183.0/24 12.177.5.0/24 12.192.16.0/24 12.192.17.0/24 23.142.192.0/24 23.164.160.0/24 23.175.160.0/24 27.50.32.0/21 38.72.144.0/20 38.87.144.0/23 45.33.128.0/22 45.33.132.0/22 45.33.136.0/22 45.33.140.0/24 45.33.140.0/22 45.40.118.0/23 52.129.12.0/23 64.62.128.0/18 64.62.128.0/17 64.71.128.0/18 64.209.56.0/21 64.209.68.0/22 64.214.184.0/21 65.19.128.0/18 65.49.0.0/17 65.49.2.0/24 65.49.14.0/24 65.49.68.0/24 65.49.108.0/22 66.97.177.0/24 66.119.119.0/24 66.160.128.0/18 66.160.192.0/20 66.178.176.0/20 66.207.160.0/20 66.220.0.0/19 67.43.48.0/20 72.14.64.0/24 72.14.65.0/24 72.14.66.0/24 72.14.67.0/24 72.14.89.0/24 72.52.64.0/18 72.52.71.0/24 72.52.92.0/24 74.82.0.0/18 74.82.22.0/23 74.82.46.0/24 74.82.48.0/22 74.116.112.0/22 74.121.104.0/22 74.122.152.0/21 103.6.216.0/22 103.96.214.0/24 103.100.138.0/24 103.193.186.0/23 104.36.120.0/22 104.194.216.0/23 104.247.128.0/22 104.247.132.0/23 104.254.152.0/21 104.255.240.0/21 107.178.32.0/24 107.178.33.0/24 107.178.34.0/23 107.178.36.0/22 107.178.40.0/21 124.252.248.0/21 139.56.8.0/24 139.60.15.0/24 141.193.188.0/23 148.51.0.0/17 161.129.140.0/22 162.213.130.0/24 162.247.12.0/22 162.247.75.0/24 162.249.152.0/23 162.249.154.0/23 167.136.239.0/24 168.245.149.0/24 170.199.208.0/23 173.242.48.0/20 184.75.240.0/21 184.104.0.0/17 184.104.0.0/15 184.104.200.0/21 184.104.208.0/20 184.105.7.0/24 184.105.16.0/20 184.105.32.0/20 184.105.48.0/20 184.105.62.0/24 184.105.88.0/21 184.105.100.0/22 184.105.248.0/21 185.101.97.0/24 185.101.98.0/24 185.114.36.0/24 185.149.69.0/24 185.242.47.0/24 199.164.248.0/23 199.192.144.0/22 204.13.226.0/23 207.126.64.0/19 208.64.56.0/21 208.75.96.0/21 208.79.140.0/22 209.51.160.0/19 209.130.152.0/22 209.135.0.0/19 209.150.160.0/19 216.66.0.0/19 216.66.32.0/19 216.66.64.0/19 216.66.72.0/21 216.66.80.0/20 216.99.220.0/23 216.218.128.0/17 216.224.64.0/21 216.224.64.0/19 216.229.96.0/20 Admittedly some of this appears to be TE routes, but compare with: 2001::/32 2001:470::/32 2001:470:1A::/48 2001:DF2:7900::/48 2001:49E8::/32 2002::/16 2400:7A00::/32 2600:7000::/24 2602:FECA::/36 2602:FF06:725::/48 2604:A100:100::/48 2604:C800:FFFF::/48 2605:4C0::/32 2620:0:50C0::/48 2620:64:6000::/48 2620:138:C001::/48 2620:138:C002::/48 2A03:B2C0::/29 2A06:1C80::/32 2A09:2580::/29 2A09:2780::/29 2A09:3880::/29 2A09:3B80::/29 2A09:3D80::/29 2A09:E500::/29 2A09:F480::/29 2A09:FA80::/29 27 prefixes with most of them being obvious TE or customer carve-outs. In fact, the first prefix appears to be a bogon from the IANA reserve, so I’m not sure why HE is originating a route for that. If you still think this isn’t a good example, then pick a decent sized transit AS of your choosing and I’ll run their statistics.
but, rather organic customer growth and RIR applications over time.
No, if you know theory and practice of how additional address ranges are allocated as a result of growth, you could have noticed that the large number of prefixes of COMCAST should mostly be a result of mergers, where merged parts won't renumber their hosts.
That’s the kind of prefix growth we should be able to mostly avoid in IPv6 that is rather rampant in IPv4.
Without automatic renumbering, IPv6 is of no help against mergers.
Merging 10 organizations each of whom have 27 IPv6 prefixes = 270 prefixes. Merging 10 organizations each of whom have 125 IPv4 prefixes = 1250 prefixes. IPv6 is of some help even in the case of mergers…
Sure, but the number of multi homed sites is way _WAY_ less than the IPv4 routing table size.
The following page by Geoff Huston is better than your delusion.
http://www.potaroo.net/ispcolumn/2001-03-bgp.html What is driving this recent change to exponential growth of the routing table? In a word, multi-homing.
Yeah, not quite the whole story in that one word… Let’s look at what is driving that increase in “multihoming”… While it’s true that cost reduction for circuits has made multihoming more practical, it’s also true that IPv4 scarcity is driving a lot of this as ISPs are less and less willing to provide free addresses to customers driving the economics for smaller and smaller customers to get tiny fractions of space from the remaining limited pools at various RIRs (e.g. ARIN NRPM 4.10 set-aside for v6 transition, APNIC last /8 policy, RIPE last /8 policy, etc.). Once you’re getting to the point of BYOA with your ISP, it’s really not much of a farther step to get an ASN to go with that and turn on BGP. Geoff’s not entirely wrong about the economics he describes, but he does, IMHO, leave some things out. For example, he seems to completely ignore (doesn’t even mention) the fact that this latest exponential expansion also coincides with the rise of the IPv4 transfer markets and the fragmentation of previously solid large blocks (e.g. MIT’s /8, AMPR selling off a /10 from 44/8, lots of /16s being sold for /24 pieces, etc.).
With the current routing practice, the number will increase to 14Mwith IPv4 and a lot more than that with IPv6. I’m curious as to why you think that the number is bounded at 14M for IPv4 and why you think there will be so many more multi homed sites in IPv6?
I don't think I must explain the current routing practice here.
You don’t need to explain the current routing practice, but if you want to be taken seriously, simply assuming that every possible /24 in IPv4 and/or every possible /48 in IPv6 will be eventually advertised is a case of reductio ad absurdum. I was trying to give you a chance to provide a better argument for your position.
The problem is serious especially because Moore's law is ending. People have been claiming that Moore's law is at an end longer than we have been pushing for IPv6 deployment.
I'm afraid you are not very familiar with semiconductor technology trend.
While I appreciate that you enjoy speaking to people in condescending tones, looking at the history and current trends shows that we are in a period where Moore’s law is leveling off. We’ve had such periods before and then someone eventually develops something new that leads to a resumption of the curve. Past examples have included sub micron technology, the shift from 5v0 to 3v3 and then later 1v8 core logic, etc. I stand by my statement. I have no idea what the next breakthrough will be, but I doubt that we have seen the last breakthrough in computing efficiency. Owen
Owen DeLong wrote:
However, since you don’t like Comcast, let’s try another one that has few (if any) mergers involved:
I don't think so.
AS6939 — 125 prefixes...
Are you spamming?
Admittedly some of this appears to be TE routes, but compare with:
2001::/32 2001:470::/32 2001:470:1A::/48 2001:DF2:7900::/48
If you are saying some merger happened before v6 transition, which explains why there are less v6 prefix than v4, I can agree with you. But, so what?
Without automatic renumbering, IPv6 is of no help against mergers.
Merging 10 organizations each of whom have 27 IPv6 prefixes = 270 prefixes. Merging 10 organizations each of whom have 125 IPv4 prefixes = 1250 prefixes.
The number of prefixes by swamp is recognized to be not a problem even when we were discussing it in 1998 when there was only less than 50000 prefixes.
Sure, but the number of multi homed sites is way _WAY_ less than the IPv4 routing table size.
Yeah, not quite the whole story in that one word… Let's look at what is driving that increase in "multihoming"…
OK. You admit that the problem is caused by multihoming. OK.
I don't think I must explain the current routing practice here.
You don’t need to explain the current routing practice, but if you want to be taken seriously, simply assuming that every possible /24 in IPv4 and/or every possible /48 in IPv6 will be eventually advertised is a case of reductio ad absurdum. I was trying to give you a chance to provide a better argument for your position.
I don't think I need such chance as my argument is already good enough.
While I appreciate that you enjoy speaking to people in condescending tones, looking at the history and current trends shows that we are in a period where Moore's law is leveling off.
I'm afraid you are not very familiar with semiconductor technology trend. Masataka Ohta
On Aug 31, 2019, at 05:04, Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
However, since you don’t like Comcast, let’s try another one that has few (if any) mergers involved:
I don't think so.
Care to expand on this?
AS6939 — 125 prefixes...
Are you spamming?
No... HE has not acquired a significant number of other businesses to the best of my knowledge.
Admittedly some of this appears to be TE routes, but compare with: 2001::/32 2001:470::/32 2001:470:1A::/48 2001:DF2:7900::/48
If you are saying some merger happened before v6 transition, which explains why there are less v6 prefix than v4, I can agree with you.
But, so what?
To the best of my knowledge, HE transitioned to v6 very early in their history, so I tend to doubt it.
Without automatic renumbering, IPv6 is of no help against mergers. Merging 10 organizations each of whom have 27 IPv6 prefixes = 270 prefixes. Merging 10 organizations each of whom have 125 IPv4 prefixes = 1250 prefixes.
The number of prefixes by swamp is recognized to be not a problem even when we were discussing it in 1998 when there was only less than 50000 prefixes.
Sure, but the number of multi homed sites is way _WAY_ less than the IPv4 routing table size.
Yeah, not quite the whole story in that one word… Let's look at what is driving that increase in "multihoming"…
OK. You admit that the problem is caused by multihoming. OK.
No, I admit multihoming is one of several factors.
I don't think I must explain the current routing practice here. You don’t need to explain the current routing practice, but if you want to be taken seriously, simply assuming that every possible /24 in IPv4 and/or every possible /48 in IPv6 will be eventually advertised is a case of reductio ad absurdum. I was trying to give you a chance to provide a better argument for your position.
I don't think I need such chance as my argument is already good enough.
We can agree to disagree about this as is usually the case.
While I appreciate that you enjoy speaking to people in condescending tones, looking at the history and current trends shows that we are in a period where Moore's law is leveling off.
I'm afraid you are not very familiar with semiconductor technology trend.
Repeating your condescending statement doesn’t make it any more accurate the second time. Owen
Owen DeLong wrote:
However, since you don’t like Comcast, let’s try another one that has few (if any) mergers involved:
I don't think so.
Care to expand on this?
See below.
No... HE has not acquired a significant number of other businesses to the best of my knowledge.
People, including me, are not interested in relying on your knowledge. If you think we should blindly believe your unfounded statement not supported by any verifiable reference, that is the condescending behavior. Moreover, your logic is flawed, because, even though HE may acquire only one business, the acquired business may have acquired a lot of other businesses.
Repeating your condescending statement doesn't make it any more accurate the second time.
That is an accurate and proper reaction to those who insists that Moore's law were not ending. Masataka Ohta
On Aug 31, 2019, at 18:48 , Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
However, since you don’t like Comcast, let’s try another one that has few (if any) mergers involved: I don't think so. Care to expand on this?
See below.
No... HE has not acquired a significant number of other businesses to the best of my knowledge.
People, including me, are not interested in relying on your knowledge.
My knowledge in this case is having been an HE employee for several years. Admittedly, that was some time ago, but I am pretty sure I would have heard of any major acquisitions by HE.
If you think we should blindly believe your unfounded statement not supported by any verifiable reference, that is the condescending behavior.
Do you have contravening knowledge or information? HE Is a private company, so it’s nearly impossible to get detailed information about such things. You offer no counter-argument nor any reason that my knowledge is inaccurate, you simply claim it’s not credible because you don’t like what it says. That’s far more condescending.
Moreover, your logic is flawed, because, even though HE may acquire only one business, the acquired business may have acquired a lot of other businesses.
The business I know it acquired was (at the time of acquisition) a relatively small east coast ISP startup. It did not have a significant history of acquisitions.
Repeating your condescending statement doesn't make it any more accurate the second time.
That is an accurate and proper reaction to those who insists that Moore's law were not ending.
We can again agree to disagree. You’ve offered no proof, no actual evidence to support this, only your own assertion. To quote your own statement: “If you think we should blindly believe your unfounded statement not supported by any verifiable reference…” Owen
Owen DeLong wrote:
My knowledge in this case is having been an HE employee for several years. Admittedly, that was some time ago, but I am pretty sure I would have heard of any major acquisitions by HE.
If you think we should blindly believe your unfounded statement not supported by any verifiable reference, that is the condescending behavior.
You offer no counter-argument nor any reason that my knowledge is inaccurate,
I'm saying your opinion is untrustworthy. Masataka Ohta
Is anyone else getting flashbacks to the guy who said he solved the spam problem? I don't think this conversation is going anywhere productive. On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:05 AM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
My knowledge in this case is having been an HE employee for several years. Admittedly, that was some time ago, but I am pretty sure I would have heard of any major acquisitions by HE.
If you think we should blindly believe your unfounded statement not supported by any verifiable reference, that is the condescending behavior.
You offer no counter-argument nor any reason that my knowledge is inaccurate,
I'm saying your opinion is untrustworthy.
Masataka Ohta
On Mon, 02 Sep 2019 14:02:43 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
If you think we should blindly believe your unfounded statement not supported by any verifiable reference, that is the condescending behavior.
Well Masataka... If "Owen DeLong, who was widely known to have been in an actual job position to know of certain facts, stating these facts" isn't sufficient evidence for you, then applying that very same standard of evidence to your assertions leads directly to "can safely be ignored" *plonk* (the sound of an email address dropping into a not-often-used ignore file)
Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
If you think we should blindly believe your unfounded statement not supported by any verifiable reference, that is the condescending behavior.
As you can see, that you finally mentioned rfc1518 as reference helped a lot to suppress unfounded and, thus, useless messages from you, because I verified the rfc to find that all of your points are denied. That's the point to have verifiable references.
Well Masataka... If "Owen DeLong, who was widely known to have been in an actual job position to know of certain facts, stating these facts" isn't sufficient evidence for you,
I can't see any confirmed facts. Moreover, even if some of his point on a single company might be valid, it is nothing for the discussion on the entire Internet.
then applying that very same standard of evidence to your assertions leads directly to "can safely be ignored"
As I already wrote:
The following page by Geoff Huston is better than your delusion. http://www.potaroo.net/ispcolumn/2001-03-bgp.html What is driving this recent change to exponential growth of the routing table? In a word, multi-homing.
feel free to verify it. Masataka Ohta
On 9/2/19 15:02, Masataka Ohta wrote:
then applying that very same standard of evidence to your assertions leads directly to "can safely be ignored"
As I already wrote:
The following page by Geoff Huston is better than your delusion. http://www.potaroo.net/ispcolumn/2001-03-bgp.html What is driving this recent change to exponential growth of the routing table? In a word, multi-homing.
feel free to verify it.
May the world come to an end if someone dares to have an independent thought or shares original information that can't be backed up by at least 50 crosschecked references.
Seth Mattinen wrote:
May the world come to an end if someone dares to have an independent thought or shares original information that can't be backed up by at least 50 crosschecked references.
Unlike references to facts, references to thought are required when the thought is not purely original and derived from someone else's thought. As such, if the thought is really independent, no references necessary. Masataka Ohta
On 9/2/19 4:40 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
May the world come to an end if someone dares to have an independent thought or shares original information that can't be backed up by at least 50 crosschecked references. Actually, independent thought or original information is welcome to anyone with a brain, as long as the author shows his/her work such that it can be verified and reproduced by others. You don't need a ton of references to the work (and conclusions) of others if you do a complete job yourself.
There is a reason for the joke publication _The Journal of Irreproducible Results_, started in 1955. So many "scientific" publications have this little tiny problem: no one can duplicate the work.
Masataka Ohta wrote on 31/08/2019 04:04:
The solution is:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-03
but IETF is working on stupid things like LISP only to increase load to the global routing system.
nothing comes for free. Pushing the complexity down to the host level is not a "solution", just a workaround with its own set of problems. Nick
Nick Hilliard wrote:
The solution is:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-03
but IETF is working on stupid things like LISP only to increase load to the global routing system.
nothing comes for free. Pushing the complexity down to the host level is not a "solution", just a workaround with its own set of problems.
If you can't accept the following principle of the End to End argument: The function in question can completely and correctly be implemented only with the knowledge and help of the application standing at the end points of the communication system. validity of which is demonstrated by the Internet, and insist that something complete and correct is not a solution but a workaround, feel free to keep using POTS not smart phones. Masataka Ohta
Masataka Ohta wrote on 31/08/2019 11:35:
If you can't accept the following principle of the End to End argument:
The function in question can completely and correctly be implemented only with the knowledge and help of the application standing at the end points of the communication system.
this is a straw man argument. E2E works regardless of the current network-based multihoming mechanism or the proposals in draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming.
validity of which is demonstrated by the Internet, and insist that something complete and correct is not a solution but a workaround
Your proposal is almost a text-book case of RFC1925, section 6:
(6) It is easier to move a problem around (for example, by moving the problem to a different part of the overall network architecture) than it is to solve it.
I.e. instead of having network level complexity, you're proposing to shift the problem to maintaining both state and network into the host level. No doubt it has some benefits, but this comes at the cost of bringing dfz complexity down to the host and all the consequent support, scaling and management headaches associated with that. I.e. the problem space shifts, but is not solved.
feel free to keep using POTS not smart phones.
Thank you, I certainly will. Conversely, please feel free to use arguments instead of rhetoric. Nick
Nick Hilliard wrote:
If you can't accept the following principle of the End to End argument:
The function in question can completely and correctly be implemented only with the knowledge and help of the application standing at the end points of the communication system.
this is a straw man argument.
The text is in the original paper on the principle: End-To-End Arguments in System Design J. H. SALTZER, D. P. REED, and D. D. CLARK http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/End-to-End%20Arguments%...
E2E works regardless of the current network-based multihoming mechanism or the proposals in draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming. As the next sentence of the paper is:
Therefore, providing that questioned function as a feature of the communication system itself is not possible which means: Therefore, providing multihoming as a feature of the communication system itself is not possible you are wrong.
Your proposal is almost a text-book case of RFC1925, section 6:
FYI, the rfc was published on 1 April.
I.e. instead of having network level complexity, you're proposing to shift the problem to maintaining both state and network into the host level. No doubt it has some benefits, but this comes at the cost of bringing dfz complexity down to the host and all the consequent support, scaling and management headaches associated with that. I.e. the problem space shifts, but is not solved.
So, you are joking, aren't you?
feel free to keep using POTS not smart phones.
Thank you, I certainly will. Conversely, please feel free to use arguments instead of rhetoric.
Instead of rhetoric, I argue by quoting from papers, hopefully not published on 1 April, validity of which is well recognized. Masataka Ohta
Masataka Ohta wrote on 31/08/2019 12:14:
Your proposal is almost a text-book case of RFC1925, section 6:
FYI, the rfc was published on 1 April.
I'm aware of the date that rfc1925 was published and the significance of the date, and also that rfc1925 was intended to take a humorous approach towards some very fundamental, recurrent themes which continue to present themselves in networking theory and practice. No-one is compelled to pay attention to anything rfc1925 for this reason, but anyone dismissing it will do so to their own disadvantage.
I.e. instead of having network level complexity, you're proposing to shift the problem to maintaining both state and network into the host level. No doubt it has some benefits, but this comes at the cost of bringing dfz complexity down to the host and all the consequent support, scaling and management headaches associated with that. I.e. the problem space shifts, but is not solved.
So, you are joking, aren't you?
We need agree to disagree then. I wish you well. Nick
Nick Hilliard wrote:
Your proposal is almost a text-book case of RFC1925, section 6:
FYI, the rfc was published on 1 April.
I'm aware of the date that rfc1925 was published and the significance of the date, and also that rfc1925 was intended to take a humorous approach towards some very fundamental, recurrent themes which continue to present themselves in networking theory and practice.
Thank you for your rhetoric. Masataka Ohta
On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 12:04:43 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
The solution is:
All I see there is some handwaving about separating something from something else, without even a description of why it was better than what was available when you wrote the draft. I don't see anything about how it's supposed to work - for example, if my cell phone had an IP address via DHCP from my home wireless router but also has an IPv6 from cellular connection, how *exactly* does it *securely* fall back to cellular if a thunderstorn knocks out Comcast's gear in the area? It's little details like that which were why your IETF draft wasn't taken seriously, and your commentary today isn't doing any better. Try attaching an actual protocol specification - preferably one that you've actually got at least somewhat-working software to implement it. I guarantee that you'll learn a few things in the process...
Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
The solution is:
All I see there is some handwaving about separating something from something else, without even a description of why it was better than what was available when you wrote the draft.
Read the first three paragraphs of abstract of the draft: This memo describes the architecture of end to end multihoming. End to end multihoming does not burden routing system for multihoming. That is, even extensive use of end to end multihoming does not increase the number of entries in a global routing table. Traditionally with IPv4, multihoming capability is offered by an intelligent routing system, which, as is always the case with violating the end to end principle, lacks scalability on a global routing table size and robustness against link failures. On the other hand, with end to end multihoming, multihoming is supported by transport (TCP) or application layer (UDP etc.) of end systems and does not introduce any problem in the network and works as long as there is some connectivity between the end systems.
I don't see anything about how it's supposed to work - for example, if my cell phone had an IP address via DHCP from my home wireless router but also has an IPv6 from cellular connection, how *exactly* does it *securely* fall back to cellular if a thunderstorn knocks out Comcast's gear in the area?
Read the title of the draft. The draft is not intended to describe protocol details. There are other articles, some of which are peer reviewed papers, describing details. But, first thing for you to do is to read the title and the abstract section of the architectural draft
Try attaching an actual protocol specification
Read the title of the draft. Masataka Ohta
On 2019/09/01 9:21, Ross Tajvar wrote:
There are other articles, some of which are peer reviewed papers, describing details.
Can you link those?
For detailed example of modified TCP: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arifumi-tcp-mh-00 For automatic renumbering: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2089037 Masataka Ohta
On Sun, 01 Sep 2019 09:04:03 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
All I see there is some handwaving about separating something from something else, without even a description of why it was better than what was available when you wrote the draft.
Read the first three paragraphs of abstract of the draft:
And it doesn't actually explain why it's better. It says it's different, but doesn't give reasons to do it other than "it's different".
Read the title of the draft. The draft is not intended to describe protocol details.
In other words, you have a wish list, not a workable idea.
Try attaching an actual protocol specification
Read the title of the draft.
The Architecture of End to End Multihoming However, the draft is lacking in any description of an actual architecture. Read RFC1518, which *does* describe an architecture, and ask yourself what's in that RFC that isn't in your draft.
Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
Read the first three paragraphs of abstract of the draft:
And it doesn't actually explain why it's better.
multihoming is supported by transport (TCP) or application layer (UDP etc.) of end systems and does not introduce any problem in the network does not introduce any problem in the network is the reason.
The Architecture of End to End Multihoming
However, the draft is lacking in any description of an actual architecture.
That is a very convincing argument made by a person who haven't read title or abstract of the draft at all. Thank you very much.
Read RFC1518, which *does* describe an architecture, and ask yourself what's in that RFC that isn't in your draft.
*YOU* should read rfc1518. Then, you could have noticed that the rfc, despite its title, says: Status of this Memo This RFC specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community though, with modern terminology, the rfc is rather a BCP than on standard track. Masataka Ohta
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 03:09:24PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
A very long time ago, I commented on this report hitting 250,000 prefixes. It was a Big F*#@$&! Deal at the time. A quarter million prefixes in the DFZ? Wow???.
Then I did it again at 500,000. People commented that I should have waited for 512,000 - especially since a popular piece of kit was expected to fall over at 512K prefixes. But I said I liked round numbers.
This time I waited for 768,000. (Everyone happy now?)
No, actually! I came on board when there were about 32,000 prefixes and we were panicked about that. "CIDRize or die", I think Sean Doran said. I remember well the memory and cam struggles to keep up with growth. Its phenomenal, yes, but also, "WTF, PEOPLE??? CAN'T ANYONE AGGREGATE ANYMORE???" :) -Wayne --- Wayne Bouchard web@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
On August 30, 2019 at 15:09 patrick@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) wrote:
Stop and think about that for a second. You had a part in literally changing the world.
Some of us had a part in literally creating TheWorld(.com) :-) -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
This time I waited for 768,000. (Everyone happy now?)
I thought the magic number for breaking old Cisco gear was 786432 (768 * 1024) ... there was a panic about it earlier this year but growth slowed so it didn't happen as soon as they feared. https://www.zdnet.com/article/some-internet-outages-predicted-for-the-coming... But looking at https://twitter.com/bgp4_table I see we passed the higher thresold (by some metrics) last month without any apparent routing failures so maybe the old Cisco gear isn't very important any more! Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ North Foreland to Selsey Bill: Southwesterly veering westerly, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 at first in east. Smooth or slight, becoming slight, occasionally moderate. Showers later. Good.
On Sep 2, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
This time I waited for 768,000. (Everyone happy now?)
I thought the magic number for breaking old Cisco gear was 786432 (768 * 1024) ... there was a panic about it earlier this year but growth slowed so it didn't happen as soon as they feared.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/some-internet-outages-predicted-for-the-coming...
But looking at https://twitter.com/bgp4_table I see we passed the higher thresold (by some metrics) last month without any apparent routing failures so maybe the old Cisco gear isn't very important any more!
It may be that there were failures but not at the core, which is more likely. I recall writing the internal technical note on the edge devices when we hit 128k and 256k numbers, especially as I was a promoter of u-RPF and this halved the TCAM size. It was only certain devices/customers that may have seen an issue, AND only for new routes not older stable ones. People who want to promote BGP churn as a platform solution need to keep this in mind. It also matters if you have the ability to disaggregate your FIB (default) vs RIB. I’m seeing more of this right now which I think is overall good. Don’t need to install all those routes in hardware if they’re all going the same way.
participants (16)
-
bzs＠theworld.com -
cscora＠apnic.net -
Jared Mauch -
Masataka Ohta -
Nick Hilliard -
Nick Morrison -
Owen DeLong -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Philip Smith -
Romeo Czumbil -
Ross Tajvar -
Seth Mattinen -
Stephen Satchell -
Tony Finch -
Valdis Klētnieks -
Wayne Bouchard