This is a list of the "Top 50" players who if CIDRizing at the AS level could make a significant gain in the reduction of the size of Internet routing tables. This may be an over-estimation but it is hoped that this can act as an incentive for the "Top 50" and others to look at their CIDR capability. This is a revival of report that used to be posted in the early days of CIDR deployment (we even had a cidrd list and working group then). This looks purely at the classful routes in the system and shows what gain if cidrizing at the AS-level could be made by forming an aggregate. --Tony P.S. Same caveat about AS name mappings not working quite right yet. P.P.S. Unless there are loud objections I plan to automate this again soon. ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS560 1697 877 820 48.3% BBN Planet, New England Region (N AS174 1295 938 357 27.6% Performance Systems International AS2493 728 456 272 37.4% FONOROLA-EAST AS3602 546 313 233 42.7% Intergrated Network Services Inc. AS1 462 293 169 36.6% BBN Planet backbone AS3397 255 94 161 63.1% EMI-AS AS3804 384 241 143 37.2% WorldLinx 3 AS1691 294 156 138 46.9% UNKNOWN AS86 293 183 110 37.5% SURAnet Northern AS AS568 375 265 110 29.3% JIS (Joint Interconnection Servic AS2386 235 140 95 40.4% INS-AS AS2704 271 182 89 32.8% HOOKUP-NET-A AS1717 451 362 89 19.7% RENATER AS721 348 267 81 23.3% UNKNOWN AS2900 207 126 81 39.1% Westnet Arizona (ASU) AS3215 127 53 74 58.3% RAIN AS3301 344 277 67 19.5% TeliaNet Sweden AS813 215 151 64 29.8% UUNET Canada (ASN-UUNETCA-AS1) AS701 868 809 59 6.8% Alternet AS2711 108 49 59 54.6% SUNBELT-AS AS1790 261 205 56 21.5% SprintLink Washington D.C. AS839 90 35 55 61.1% North West Territories Regional N AS3819 78 23 55 70.5% SIGNET AS855 119 66 53 44.5% NBTel AS225 109 67 42 38.5% University of Virginia (VIRnet) AS549 204 163 41 20.1% ONet Backbone AS3824 63 23 40 63.5% UNKNOWN AS3132 72 32 40 55.6% Red Cientifica Peruana (ASN-RCP) AS3566 64 25 39 60.9% UNKNOWN AS4983 62 25 37 59.7% Intel Corporation Autonomous Syst AS1785 220 183 37 16.8% NYSERNet Backbone AS6059 53 17 36 67.9% UNKNOWN AS3561 848 812 36 4.2% MCI AS97 135 101 34 25.2% JvNCnet AS852 129 95 34 26.4% AGT Advance Communication AS2044 112 78 34 30.4% WORLDNET-AS AS719 392 359 33 8.4% LANLINK autonomous system AS600 199 166 33 16.6% OARnet AS AS4175 411 378 33 8.0% UNKNOWN AS279 210 177 33 15.7% SURAnet Southern AS AS271 90 57 33 36.7% BCnet Backbone AS4200 155 123 32 20.6% AGIS (Apex Global Information Ser AS1706 66 34 32 48.5% University of Arizona AS3799 53 23 30 56.6% IDS AS3603 63 33 30 47.6% CETCOL - Uniandes AS3354 118 88 30 25.4% THENET-AS-1 AS1791 109 80 29 26.6% SprintLink Fort Worth TX AS4361 42 14 28 66.7% UNKNOWN AS4230 76 48 28 36.8% Embratel Brazil AS262 100 72 28 28.0% UNKNOWN AS2551 321 293 28 8.7% NETCOM On-line Communication Serv
Tony, any chance you can put a summary line at the end to see what the total savings could be? -Marten
ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description ... Total 30892 24442 6450 20.9% -Tony Marten Terpstra <marten@BayNetworks.com> writes: * * Tony, * * any chance you can put a summary line at the end to see what the total * savings could be? * * -Marten
Tony Bates wrote:
This is a list of the "Top 50" players who if CIDRizing at the AS level could make a significant gain in the reduction of the size of Internet routing tables. This may be an over-estimation but it is hoped that this can act as an incentive for the "Top 50" and others to look at their CIDR capability. This is a revival of report that used to be posted in the early days of CIDR deployment (we even had a cidrd list and working group then).
This looks purely at the classful routes in the system and shows what gain if cidrizing at the AS-level could be made by forming an aggregate.
--Tony
P.S. Same caveat about AS name mappings not working quite right yet. P.P.S. Unless there are loud objections I plan to automate this again soon.
The above is an excellent idea. Perhaps if you could mail the output to nanog and ripe-list the peer pressure would help and in some cases inform LIRS/ISPs what they may unknowingly be doing wrong. RIPE did this earlier inthe year for the European registries and it worked. Is there an APNIC equivelant ? It would also be a good idea IMHO if the Global registries (APNIC RIPE INTERNIC)had email lists, alongthe lines of the ones RIPE runs, which it encouraged new 'customers' to join. This may be the nearest we get to a global isp email list. Regards Tony
Actually - as of this week I mailed it automatically to nanog@merit.edu, eof-list@ripe.net, apops@apnic.net However, for some reason I dont see the nanog message. not sure why. This is partly a test to see if I see this one. --Tony Tony Barber <tonyb@uunet.pipex.com> writes: * Tony Bates wrote: * > * > * >This is a list of the "Top 50" players who if CIDRizing at the AS level * >could make a significant gain in the reduction of the size of Internet * >routing tables. This may be an over-estimation but it is hoped that * >this can act as an incentive for the "Top 50" and others to look at * >their CIDR capability. This is a revival of report that used to be * >posted in the early days of CIDR deployment (we even had a cidrd list * >and working group then). * > * >This looks purely at the classful routes in the system and shows what gain * if * >cidrizing at the AS-level could be made by forming an aggregate. * > * > --Tony * > * >P.S. Same caveat about AS name mappings not working quite right yet. * >P.P.S. Unless there are loud objections I plan to automate this again soon * . * > * * The above is an excellent idea. Perhaps if you could mail the output to * nanog and ripe-list the peer pressure would help and in some cases inform * LIRS/ISPs what they may unknowingly be doing wrong. * RIPE did this earlier inthe year for the European registries and it worked. * * Is there an APNIC equivelant ? * * It would also be a good idea IMHO if the Global registries (APNIC RIPE INTE * RNIC)had email lists, alongthe lines of the ones RIPE runs, which it encour * aged * new 'customers' to join. This may be the nearest we get to a global * isp email list. * * Regards * * Tony
Hello, yes, I can seeyou!!!!!! viele Gruesse Thomas Waelde (DENIC Hostmaster)
Actually - as of this week I mailed it automatically to
nanog@merit.edu, eof-list@ripe.net, apops@apnic.net
However, for some reason I dont see the nanog message. not sure why. This is partly a test to see if I see this one.
--Tony
Tony Barber <tonyb@uunet.pipex.com> writes: * Tony Bates wrote: * > * > * >This is a list of the "Top 50" players who if CIDRizing at the AS level * >could make a significant gain in the reduction of the size of Internet * >routing tables. This may be an over-estimation but it is hoped that * >this can act as an incentive for the "Top 50" and others to look at * >their CIDR capability. This is a revival of report that used to be * >posted in the early days of CIDR deployment (we even had a cidrd list * >and working group then). * > * >This looks purely at the classful routes in the system and shows what gain * if * >cidrizing at the AS-level could be made by forming an aggregate. * > * > --Tony * > * >P.S. Same caveat about AS name mappings not working quite right yet. * >P.P.S. Unless there are loud objections I plan to automate this again soon * . * > * * The above is an excellent idea. Perhaps if you could mail the output to * nanog and ripe-list the peer pressure would help and in some cases inform * LIRS/ISPs what they may unknowingly be doing wrong. * RIPE did this earlier inthe year for the European registries and it worked. * * Is there an APNIC equivelant ? * * It would also be a good idea IMHO if the Global registries (APNIC RIPE INTE * RNIC)had email lists, alongthe lines of the ones RIPE runs, which it encour * aged * new 'customers' to join. This may be the nearest we get to a global * isp email list. * * Regards * * Tony
-- _0_ "Hostmaster of the day" eMail: hostmaster@nic.de / \ RZ<-- Rechenzentrum/DE-NIC \_______/ Universitaet Karlsruhe Tel: +49 721 373723 / / | \ \ Postfach 6980 Fax: +49 721 373741 _/_/__|__\_\_ D-76128 Karlsruhe Fax: +49 721 32550
participants (4)
-
hostmaster@nic.de
-
Marten Terpstra
-
Tony Barber
-
Tony Bates