The Cidr Report

Mon Feb 2 06:21:06 UTC 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

http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html#Aggs

You may just see something youy can clean up.

		--Tony

 Vince Fuller <xxvaf at valinor.barrnet.net> 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)