North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: The Cidr Report

  • From: Stephen J. Wilcox
  • Date: Sat Feb 12 09:59:48 2005

Hi Philip,

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Philip Smith wrote:

> Quite often many service providers are de-aggregating without knowing it. They
> receive their /20 or whatever from the RIR, but they consider this to be 16
> Class Cs - I'm not joking - and announce them as such to the Internet. I spend
> a lot of time getting these folks to announce aggregates, but it is hard work
> convincing people that this will even work. Even if the RIR recommends that
> they announce their address block, they still consider it as Class Cs - even
> Class Bs for some big allocations. :(

this is getting into what i was implying earlier.. you have wider experience 
than me - would you agree that most of the poor deaggregating is not intentional 
ie that they're announcing their '16 class Cs' or historically had 2 /21s and 
dont even realise they could fix it.. that applies to medium and large providers 
too reading this list - how often do they actually check what prefixes they are 
sourcing, from my recent work at a couple of european IXes i had a number of 
folks email me offlist as they hadnt realised til I sent out an email they had 
deaggregation and once it was pointed out they just fixed it.

so to repeat my earlier suggestion - if transit providers, particularly the 
larger ones setup scripts to notify their customers daily/weeks of routing 
deaggregation do you think we might gain some traction in educating and fixing