[125422] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: advertisements of 14/8 and 223/8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian Seitz)
Thu Apr 15 16:29:17 2010
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:26:59 +0200
From: Christian Seitz <seitz@strato-rz.de>
To: Tomoya Yoshida <yoshida@nttv6.jp>
In-Reply-To: <20100416010159.AC87.9C4C12A4@nttv6.jp>
Cc: apops@apops.net, ausnog@lists.ausnog.net, nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>,
NZNOG List <nznog@list.waikato.ac.nz>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hello,
Tomoya Yoshida wrote:
> I started to advertise for test two /8s and in addition to
> collecting of unwanted traffic I checked the status of
> route-views of these two /8s including two experimental
> prefixes in 27/8 which is allocated to APNIC on Jan 2010
> and old 115/8 space.
>
> http://www.nttv6.jp/~yoshida/bogon_rviews_20100415_yoshida.pdf
>
> For 27/8, It seemse that some ISP still dosen't update
> their filter or dosen't advertise to route-views by some reasons.
> Now I'm using 27/8 space and I found that there is no reachability
> about 10% ASes, at least 2,000 ASes as our test, It can't be
> said the good situation at all. I will continue to test this month
> and would like to share about the result somewhere.
>
> Also the interesting result is that there is differences between
> 14/8 and 223/8 on route-views result. Do you have any idea?
I have heard from some carriers that they only accept selected /8s, but not from
all IP ranges. Perhaps the test announcements should be 4x /10 for example
instead of a single /8. Then the announcements should reach more ASes.
Regards,
Chris
