Akamai minimum prefix length issue

Wed May 13 19:42:22 UTC 2015

Chuck,

Just throwing this out there as a possibility, I've seen similar issues
with other ISPs wherein the root cause was their BGP speaking routers using
a filter set published by (I'm almost certain) Cisco that, among other
things, blocks announcements of any prefix that is smaller then the minimum
prefix size allocated from an RIR for the prefix in question. If you look
at https://www.arin.net/knowledge/ip_blocks.html you will see that they now
say "All prefixes have the potential to have a /24 minimum size allocation
issued from them.", but this was not always the case. For example, looking
at the archive.org copy of that page from
https://web.archive.org/web/20140107021136/https://www.arin.net/knowledge/ip_blocks.html
on January 7, 2014, the smallest prefix they allocated from 162/8 was a
/22. I did some quick google'ing but was unable to find a copy of the
filter set in question. I poked a few of my colleagues and will  let you
know if I'm able to find a copy for reference.

--Jake

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Chuck Church <chuckchurch at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Anyone from Akamai (or who might know),
>
>         Having an issue with AS 20940 either not seeing or ignoring a /23
> we're announcing, and following a /22 to another path.  Other ISPs our
> upstream peers with see the /23.  I didn't see a looking glass for Akamai
> to
> verify.  Anyone from Akamai able to help?  Prefix in question is
> 162.220.232.0/23.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>