Re: The Cidr Report

  • To: Tony Bates <tbates at cisco dot com>
  • Subject: Re: The Cidr Report
  • From: Vince Fuller <xxvaf at valinor dot barrnet dot net>
  • Date: Fri, 30 Jan 98 13:19:35 PST
  • Cc: nanog at merit dot edu, eof-list at ripe dot net, apops at apnic dot net, routing-wg at ripe dot net, Pekka.Haara at hpy dot fi
  • In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:25:52 -0800
  • Sender:
    • > As you can see things are startng to move up recently. I'd suggest
      > folks take a look at the "Interesting Aggregates" section on the web
      > page as it appears there's been a large influx of routes
      > here. Particularly AS719 who look like they may have a config error
      > with many many /28s showing up. They aren't the only ones as there
      > seems to be a lot of potential savings to be made here just by
      > eye-balling the aggregates.
      It looks like AS 719 may have cleaned-up their act, but there is still a lot
      of garbage in that section of the report. Most of them seem to be subnets of
      /16's that all have the same AS path and therefore have no reason to not be
      aggregated. 168.108.x.y, 166.102.x.y, 152.166.x.y-152.172.x.y, 129.81.x.y,
      and 139.175.x.y are the most obvious offenders - all of the components of each
      are singly-homed to a single AS path (yes, AS 1 has a couple of small ones
      not listed above - I'll see about chasing those down). Others, like
      161.11.x.y, 138.87.x.y, 137.15.x.y, 137.98.x.y, and 143.233.x.y appear to
      be multi-homed but still shouldn't need to be propagated to the global
      If you're going to accept CIDR block subcomponents from your customers for
      load-balancing or other purposes, please set community "no-advertise" or
      otherwise prevent them from leaking out to the rest of the net - everyone
      else doesn't need to see your trash...
      (note: from address modified to discourage spam)
      To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apops-request at apnic dot net