This report has been generated at Fri Oct 14 21:12:28 2011 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date Prefixes CIDR Agg 07-10-11 378198 221965 08-10-11 378345 221799 09-10-11 378077 221883 10-10-11 377990 222159 11-10-11 378202 222087 12-10-11 378480 222395 13-10-11 379430 222520 14-10-11 379221 222643 AS Summary 39151 Number of ASes in routing system 16558 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix 3547 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS AS6389 : BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc. 108442592 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s) AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street Aggregation Summary The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes'). --- 14Oct11 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description Table 379814 222529 157285 41.4% All ASes AS6389 3547 224 3323 93.7% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc. AS18566 2098 405 1693 80.7% COVAD - Covad Communications Co. AS4766 2500 980 1520 60.8% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom AS22773 1461 110 1351 92.5% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications Inc. AS4755 1537 229 1308 85.1% TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP AS4323 1632 395 1237 75.8% TWTC - tw telecom holdings, inc. AS1785 1839 784 1055 57.4% AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec Communications, Inc. AS28573 1376 342 1034 75.1% NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A. AS19262 1395 400 995 71.3% VZGNI-TRANSIT - Verizon Online LLC AS7552 1387 425 962 69.4% VIETEL-AS-AP Vietel Corporation AS10620 1681 748 933 55.5% Telmex Colombia S.A. AS7303 1164 321 843 72.4% Telecom Argentina S.A. AS18101 954 150 804 84.3% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN Reliance Communications Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI AS8151 1429 679 750 52.5% Uninet S.A. de C.V. AS4808 1081 340 741 68.5% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network AS30036 1389 678 711 51.2% MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS - Mediacom Communications Corp AS7545 1612 934 678 42.1% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet Pty Ltd AS17974 1936 1271 665 34.3% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia AS3356 1102 450 652 59.2% LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications AS24560 1018 372 646 63.5% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services AS8402 1450 823 627 43.2% CORBINA-AS OJSC "Vimpelcom" AS4804 714 94 620 86.8% MPX-AS Microplex PTY LTD AS3549 1052 444 608 57.8% GBLX Global Crossing Ltd. AS17676 675 70 605 89.6% GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp. AS7029 2160 1556 604 28.0% WINDSTREAM - Windstream Communications Inc AS22561 966 362 604 62.5% DIGITAL-TELEPORT - Digital Teleport Inc. AS20115 1591 988 603 37.9% CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter Communications AS22047 580 33 547 94.3% VTR BANDA ANCHA S.A. AS7011 1166 644 522 44.8% FRONTIER-AND-CITIZENS - Frontier Communications of America, Inc. AS17488 889 393 496 55.8% HATHWAY-NET-AP Hathway IP Over Cable Internet Total 43381 15644 27737 63.9% Top 30 total Possible Bogus Routes 5.0.0.0/16 AS12654 RIPE-NCC-RIS-AS RIPE Network Coordination Center 5.1.0.0/21 AS12654 RIPE-NCC-RIS-AS RIPE Network Coordination Center 5.1.24.0/24 AS12654 RIPE-NCC-RIS-AS RIPE Network Coordination Center 10.86.64.32/30 AS65530 -Private Use AS- 10.86.64.36/30 AS65530 -Private Use AS- 10.86.65.32/30 AS65530 -Private Use AS- 10.86.65.36/30 AS65530 -Private Use AS- 10.255.255.0/30 AS65530 -Private Use AS- 10.255.255.4/30 AS65530 -Private Use AS- 10.255.255.8/30 AS65530 -Private Use AS- 41.222.79.0/24 AS36938 AMSCOTELECOMS Amsco Telecommunications Nigeria Limited 41.223.92.0/22 AS36936 CELTEL-GABON Celtel Gabon Internet Service 62.61.220.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV 62.61.221.0/24 AS24974 TACHYON-EU Tachyon Europe BV 64.21.192.0/20 AS11610 INETNEBR-1 - Internet Nebraska Corporation 64.21.212.0/22 AS11610 INETNEBR-1 - Internet Nebraska Corporation 64.21.216.0/21 AS11610 INETNEBR-1 - Internet Nebraska Corporation 66.171.32.0/20 AS705 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 66.180.239.0/24 AS35888 VIGNETTE - VIGNETTE CORPORATION 66.206.47.0/24 AS17557 PKTELECOM-AS-PK Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited 66.207.32.0/20 AS23011 66.245.176.0/20 AS19318 NJIIX-AS-1 - NEW JERSEY INTERNATIONAL INTERNET EXCHANGE LLC 69.6.80.0/24 AS13442 71.19.134.0/23 AS3313 INET-AS BT Italia S.p.A. 80.88.10.0/24 AS33774 DJAWEB 110.34.44.0/22 AS12653 COMTONET KB Impuls Hellas 116.206.72.0/24 AS6461 MFNX MFN - Metromedia Fiber Network 116.206.85.0/24 AS6461 MFNX MFN - Metromedia Fiber Network 116.206.103.0/24 AS6461 MFNX MFN - Metromedia Fiber Network 117.120.56.0/21 AS4755 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP 121.46.0.0/16 AS4134 CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street 130.0.72.0/21 AS42442 ADACOR-AS Adacor Hosting GmbH 142.54.0.0/19 AS23498 CDSI - Cogeco Data Services Inc. 172.45.1.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS 172.45.2.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS 172.45.3.0/24 AS29571 CITelecom-AS 172.102.0.0/22 AS4812 CHINANET-SH-AP China Telecom (Group) 185.0.0.0/16 AS12654 RIPE-NCC-RIS-AS RIPE Network Coordination Center 185.1.0.0/21 AS12654 RIPE-NCC-RIS-AS RIPE Network Coordination Center 185.24.0.0/24 AS12654 RIPE-NCC-RIS-AS RIPE Network Coordination Center 190.102.32.0/20 AS30058 FDCSERVERS - FDCservers.net 190.104.32.0/21 AS27882 Telefónica Celular de Bolivia S.A. 193.111.87.0/24 AS24812 200.6.93.0/24 AS6400 Compañía Dominicana de Teléfonos, C. por A. - CODETEL 200.6.94.0/24 AS6400 Compañía Dominicana de Teléfonos, C. por A. - CODETEL 200.6.95.0/24 AS6400 Compañía Dominicana de Teléfonos, C. por A. - CODETEL 200.23.84.0/24 AS8151 Uninet S.A. de C.V. 200.24.73.0/24 AS26061 Equant Colombia 200.24.78.0/26 AS3549 GBLX Global Crossing Ltd. 200.24.78.64/26 AS3549 GBLX Global Crossing Ltd. 200.33.40.0/24 AS11172 Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V. 200.34.0.0/20 AS6342 Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey 200.53.0.0/19 AS13878 Diveo do Brasil Telecomunicacoes Ltda 202.1.224.0/24 AS10097 FLOWCOM Flow Communications 2/541 Kent St Sydney NSW 2000 202.9.55.0/24 AS2764 AAPT AAPT Limited 202.9.57.0/24 AS2764 AAPT AAPT Limited 202.58.113.0/24 AS19161 202.61.75.0/24 AS9927 PHILCOMNET-PH A Multihomed ISP Company 202.74.232.0/24 AS17557 PKTELECOM-AS-PK Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited 202.74.233.0/24 AS17557 PKTELECOM-AS-PK Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited 202.83.120.0/21 AS37972 202.83.124.0/24 AS37972 202.83.125.0/24 AS37972 202.83.126.0/24 AS37972 202.94.1.0/24 AS4808 CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP network China169 Beijing Province Network 202.133.70.0/24 AS38616 WORLDCALL-AS-KHI Worldcall Telecom Limited 202.160.152.0/22 AS10113 DATAFAST-AP DATAFAST TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD 202.174.125.0/24 AS9498 BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd. 202.176.1.0/24 AS9942 COMINDICO-AP SOUL Converged Communications Australia 202.179.131.0/24 AS17557 PKTELECOM-AS-PK Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited 202.179.134.0/24 AS23966 LDN-AS-PK LINKdotNET Telecom Limited 202.179.144.0/24 AS17557 PKTELECOM-AS-PK Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited 203.23.1.0/24 AS18111 NETSPEED-AS-AP Netspeed Internet Communications 203.24.38.0/24 AS18111 NETSPEED-AS-AP Netspeed Internet Communications 203.30.127.0/24 AS18111 NETSPEED-AS-AP Netspeed Internet Communications 203.32.86.0/23 AS18111 NETSPEED-AS-AP Netspeed Internet Communications 203.32.86.0/24 AS18111 NETSPEED-AS-AP Netspeed Internet Communications 203.32.87.0/24 AS18111 NETSPEED-AS-AP Netspeed Internet Communications 203.32.188.0/24 AS1221 ASN-TELSTRA Telstra Pty Ltd 203.142.219.0/24 AS45149 203.175.107.0/24 AS45595 PKTELECOM-AS-PK Pakistan Telecom Company Limited 205.150.0.0/15 AS701 UUNET - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 205.175.214.0/24 AS5583 ORANGE-BUSINESS-SERVICES-BENELUX Orange Business Services (formerly Equant) AS for BENELUX 205.207.148.0/23 AS812 ROGERS-CABLE - Rogers Cable Communications Inc. 206.123.129.0/24 AS10790 INREACH-AS - InReach Internet 206.180.240.0/20 AS12083 KNOLOGY-NET - Knology Holdings 206.197.184.0/24 AS23304 DATOTEL-STL-AS - Datotel LLC, a NetLabs LLC Company 207.174.131.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc. 207.174.132.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc. 207.174.152.0/23 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc. 207.174.154.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc. 207.174.155.0/24 AS26116 INDRA - Indra's Net Inc. 207.174.200.0/24 AS22658 EARTHNET - Earthnet, Inc. 207.174.248.0/21 AS6653 PRIVATEI - privateI, LLC 207.231.96.0/19 AS11194 NUNETPA - NuNet Inc. 208.64.240.0/21 AS13871 TELEBYTE-NW - Telebyte NW 208.83.53.0/24 AS40569 YGOMI-AS - Ygomi LLC 209.148.64.0/19 AS13773 TELNETCOMM - Telnet Communications 209.177.64.0/20 AS6461 MFNX MFN - Metromedia Fiber Network 209.213.0.0/20 AS33005 ELTOPIA - Eltopia.com, LLC 210.56.150.0/23 AS38138 INTECH-TRANSIT-BD InTech Online Limited, INTERNET SERVICE LIMITED 216.21.160.0/20 AS13818 PHX-INTL-TELEPORT - Phoenix International Teleport 216.58.200.0/24 AS18530 ISOMEDIA-1 - Isomedia Inc. 216.194.160.0/20 AS13818 PHX-INTL-TELEPORT - Phoenix International Teleport Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog@nanog.org eof-list@ripe.net apops@apops.net routing-wg@ripe.net afnog@afnog.org
From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? thanks, Geoff
From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more.
some read it. we are the frustrated ones. no one seems to act on it.
Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report?
not clear, sad to say. i really think that the only way to reduce fragging is filtering. maybe a bgp blackhole feed for frags for which there are covering prefixes? randy
On Oct 15, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more.
some read it. we are the frustrated ones.
Some read it. I think everyone on NANOG is frustrated (or not paying attention). I would suggest that you keep sending it, but I have no way to motivate you to do so other than to confirm I do read it.
no one seems to act on it.
It is useful even just as data to show others, whether they act on that data or not.
Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report?
not clear, sad to say.
i really think that the only way to reduce fragging is filtering. maybe a bgp blackhole feed for frags for which there are covering prefixes?
If history is any guide, this will not work. Someone will listen, and those who do not will lose customer (i.e. money). The Internet is a business, and therefore money talks. To date, no one has been able to prove to the bean counters that more prefixes means less profit. For instance, I spoke to someone at the conference whose company is spewing 1000s of prefixes they do not have to. That person said "well, FIB compression makes everything OK, so it doesn't matter, right?" (paraphrased). This is a company who tells others "you have to pay me to use my resources", yet feels absolutely no qualms about using other networks' resources for free. Hypocrisy is live & well on the Internet. (I know you are all shocked.) -- TTFN, patrick
I may not read it for the purpose of aggregation, but it is useful data to me for other purposes. As long as there is one person talking and at least one person listening, a thread is in order, and it isn't spam. On Oct 15, 2011 3:25 PM, "Geoff Huston" <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more.
Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report?
thanks, Geoff
Ditto, and I do find it informative. Jim On Oct 15, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Kyle Creyts <kyle.creyts@gmail.com> wrote:
I may not read it for the purpose of aggregation, but it is useful data to me for other purposes.
As long as there is one person talking and at least one person listening, a thread is in order, and it isn't spam. On Oct 15, 2011 3:25 PM, "Geoff Huston" <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more.
Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report?
thanks, Geoff
Does anyone give a s**t about this any more? From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more. Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report? thanks, Geoff
Geoff Huston writes:
Does anyone give a s**t about this any more?
I do; I check the weekly increase every week, and check who the top offenders are. If someone from my vicinity/circles is on the list (doesn't happen frequently; more often for the BGP updates report than for CIDR), I may send them a note and ask what happened.
From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more.
"Reads" may be an exaggeration, but I'm sure some look at it.
Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report?
I think it still provides an incentive for people not to mess things up too badly; and a chance of some mishaps to be noticed quicker, with a little help from your friends. -- Simon.
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011, Simon Leinen wrote: Ditto here. -Hank
Geoff Huston writes:
Does anyone give a s**t about this any more?
I do; I check the weekly increase every week, and check who the top offenders are. If someone from my vicinity/circles is on the list (doesn't happen frequently; more often for the BGP updates report than for CIDR), I may send them a note and ask what happened.
From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more.
"Reads" may be an exaggeration, but I'm sure some look at it.
Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report?
I think it still provides an incentive for people not to mess things up too badly; and a chance of some mishaps to be noticed quicker, with a little help from your friends.
On 15/10/2011 21:25, Geoff Huston wrote:
Does anyone give a s**t about this any more?
I do. While most of the content of the actual mail has very little relevance to me, it does provide useful leverage and motivation to fix some of the networks where I do have influence.
From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more.
I often don't have the time to read every report in detail and much of it applies to networks outside of my circles. Every few weeks it does however prompt me to go and review my own network (and sometimes wave a stick at few ops people)
Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report?
I definitely think its still useful for the community. Perhaps the frequency could be dialed back a little? I'm sure that there are many people who don't really notice it any more due to their mental white noise filters. Perhaps some slightly different presentations of the data would also make it more useful. I am quite interested in the number of prefixes of various lengths that are seen in the table and that doesn't get included in the mailed report. Perhaps a "biggest climbers & fallers" list would also have more relevance for the regular report. The "Top 30" list doesn't seem to change very often... ;-) -- Graham Beneke
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Beneke" <graham@apolix.co.za>
Perhaps a "biggest climbers & fallers" list would also have more relevance for the regular report. The "Top 30" list doesn't seem to change very often... ;-)
"And now... with the top 30 prefixes in the United States for the week ending October 16th, Two Thousand Eleven, I'm Casey Kasem... (Shuckatoom[1] plays)" Cheers, -- jra [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhM4Y3Bo2jM -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
On 15. Oct 2011, at 19:25 , Geoff Huston wrote:
Does anyone give a s**t about this any more?
Yes, and if only to tell people that we could do a lot better if we'd care more about the Net than .. (?)economics(?) ..? I keep wondering if people generate more elaborated filters based on the overall data to get down table sizes rather than saying >=/24 only or similar? To me it reads as we'd still be below 256k then rather than close to 400k? Or more realistically 300k-ish? Anyone done any research how that would affect various numbers in forwarding paths? *hide*
From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more.
Read? Or act? Where are the BNOsFH these days?
Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report?
A good reason would be to add the same damned thing for IPv6 as well to avoid us starting with the same *beep* there already. There was a great number of noise in the table when I last looked myself (given it's been a longer while). Now we want to encourage people to deploy IPv6 and not make it harder for them but a lot of obstacles in policies from the very early days are gone these days and could be cleaned up before it's too late and in addition if people roll it out now, why not do it once and do it right from the beginning, but where's the education on `eek not the same *beep* as with legacy IP again`, as some people are trapped in BBCP (bad best current practices)? Well I know you have it online, but polling a website is harder than getting it delivered to the inbox every week;) /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
Perhaps we should have newnog implement a penalty payment system for registrations; tag an extra $25 "excessive leakage" charge onto conference registrations for networks that are in the top 30 list? I worked at a network that made it onto the list of shame. Once. It was projected onto the screen at NANOG 8 during a presentation. I don't even remember the rest of the presentation, because all of us present from that network immediately ssh'd in, figured out the missing route-map on a session, applied it, and looked around very red-facedly at everyone else in the room. anonymous shaming on a mailing list is one thing. public shaming in a room full of your peers...that hits home immediately and viscerally, if you have any pride as an engineer. ^_^;; Don't stop what you're doing, Geoff--it does make a difference. Matt
participants (12)
-
Bjoern A. Zeeb -
cidr-report＠potaroo.net -
Geoff Huston -
Graham Beneke -
Hank Nussbacher -
James McMurry -
Jay Ashworth -
Kyle Creyts -
Matthew Petach -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Randy Bush -
Simon Leinen