North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: The Cidr Report

  • From: Vince Fuller
  • Date: Mon Feb 02 11:31:34 1998

> 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)