This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Sep 11 12:00:00 PDT 1998
It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully
you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look
through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you
perform.
The report is split into sections:
0) General Status
List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly
bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes.
1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level
This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate
their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could
make a significant difference in the reduction of the current
size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not
take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate
so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible.
2) Weekly Delta
A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and
added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does
give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly,
it is generally a good thing to see a large amont of withdrawls.
3) Interesting aggregates
Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of
classful routes.
Thanks to xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a
day.
Please send any comments about this report directly to me.
Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily
update of this report.
Anyone care to comment on the fact that the top non-compliant companies never really seem
to make any significant changes?
Why should they, there is no reason for them to. Personally I wonder what
would happen if we (the rest of us) started filtering on /19's or /20's 
But then you take UUNET (Alternet) and for example 207.170.32.0 /19
is advertised as a /19 AND a stack of /24's all with the same AS path
and from what I can tell no special routes, at least not via nitrous.digex.net
But what do I know, I am a lonely little guy...
Anyone care to comment on the fact that the top non-compliant companies
never really seem
to make any significant changes?
--- 11Sep98 ---
ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description
AS701 1185 956 229 19.3% Alternet
AS271 349 152 197 56.4% BCnet Backbone
AS4293 445 258 187 42.0% IMCI
AS174 789 611 178 22.6% Performance Systems
International
AS3749 225 68 157 69.8% TECNET
AS2493 373 217 156 41.8% iSTAR Internet, Inc.
AS4200 192 100 92 47.9% AGIS (Apex Global
Information Ser
AS5668 128 41 87 68.0% Century Telephone Inc.
AS2685 229 151 78 34.1% IBM Global Network - US
AS4755 125 49 76 60.8% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
India
AS3221 117 44 73 62.4% EENet Autonomous System
AS4740 404 336 68 16.8% Ozemail Pty Ltd (ASN-OZEMAIL)
AS3493 251 183 68 27.1% INTERLINK
AS7046 239 172 67 28.0% UUNET-CUSTOMER
AS3804 215 157 58 27.0% Bell Solutions
AS10928 101 46 55 54.5% UNKNOWN
AS549 204 151 53 26.0% ONet Backbone
AS8517 123 71 52 42.3% ULAKNET-ASN
AS6335 69 20 49 71.0% NTRNET
AS72 87 39 48 55.2% Schlumberger Information
Network
John M. Brown wrote:
Why should they, there is no reason for them to. Personally I wonder what
would happen if we (the rest of us) started filtering on /19's or /20's
Not to rehash, but there are legitimate reasons to advertise /24's. I'd
say that filtering at that level would be reasonable. What bothers me
is seeing certain networks advertising an aggregate along with all or
most subnetworks. Being flexible with one's downstreams is one thing,
irresponsible adverts are another.
But then you take UUNET (Alternet) and for example 207.170.32.0 /19
is advertised as a /19 AND a stack of /24's all with the same AS path
and from what I can tell no special routes, at least not via nitrous.digex.net
But what do I know, I am a lonely little guy...
My point exactly
Yup! (I agree with both of your points! )
We should allow /24's into the route system and it wouldn't be as big of
a deal if folks like AS701 and others cleaned up there routes.
Many rural providers are going to be multi-homing and thus we are going
to see an increase of /24 - /20 blocks.
jmbrown@ihighway.net
John M. Brown wrote:
Why should they, there is no reason for them to. Personally I wonder what
would happen if we (the rest of us) started filtering on /19's or /20's
Not to rehash, but there are legitimate reasons to advertise /24's. I'd
say that filtering at that level would be reasonable. What bothers me
is seeing certain networks advertising an aggregate along with all or
most subnetworks. Being flexible with one's downstreams is one thing,
irresponsible adverts are another.
But then you take UUNET (Alternet) and for example 207.170.32.0 /19
is advertised as a /19 AND a stack of /24's all with the same AS path
and from what I can tell no special routes, at least not via
nitrous.digex.net
I scan the Cidr report weekly as it comes to nanog, and
look for particulary bad problems and e-mail their upstreams
asking them to filter.
uunet is bad at taking care of these, but ANS has been
great at filtering people (won't cite the cases) that are their
customers and getting them to fix people who appear on the list.
I would recommend doing that, if they (The AS contacts) and
providers get enough complaints (just like what needed to happen w/ spam),
they will do something.
- jared