North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: The Cidr Report

  • From: Tony Bates
  • Date: Mon Feb 02 01:39:08 1998

Actually, from where I'm sitting AS719 still looks to be in bad
shape. However, as you say they are just one of many. I encourage 
everyone to take a quick look through

You may just see something youy can clean up.


 Vince Fuller <[email protected]> writes:
  * > 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 lo
  * t
  * of garbage in that section of the report. Most of them seem to be subnets o
  * f
  * /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 e
  * ach
  * 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
  * Internet.
  * 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...
  * 	--Vince
  * (note: from address modified to discourage spam)