The Cidr Report

Pushpendra Mohta pushp at CERF.NET
Mon Dec 2 00:57:29 UTC 1996

> This is not to pick on CERFNET but just to highlight a problem of
> actually tracking the size of the routing table in general. This 
> CERFnet case seems to be this way becuase it is a direct peer of
> Bill's box even though I can see no reason why the more specifics are
> needed.
> Looking a little more it seems a large amount of more specifics are being
> announced to Bill's boxe which aren't being announced to the
> router. Perhaps ISPs are taking more care at places like MAE-East with
> their outbound filters than they are at Bill's peering point even though
> Bill only has 6 active EBGP neighbors and the router has 39
> ;-(.

Apparently true. The specifics leak from one of our CIDR blocks
was only being made to Bill's peering point ( otherwise known
as MAE-LA or MELEE when first started ;-) ). Being fixed shortly. Thanks 

On the larger question, it would be difficult to find two places
on the net with a  consistent view of the global routing table 
although for trend analysis both MAE East and the Sprint NAP should have
a more of a representative view than MAE-LA.


Pushpendra Mohta          pushp at        +1 619 455 3908

More information about the NANOG mailing list