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.
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.