[171429] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: We hit half-million: The Cidr Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kate Gerry)
Tue Apr 29 13:25:25 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Kate Gerry <kate@quadranet.com>
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 09:29:28 -0700
In-Reply-To: <FE635A77-A496-43C2-87C1-2E1E1E423A2B@ianai.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Already working on aggregating as much as I can. I was checking my tables =
the other day and I think I saw another provider advertising their /18 as /=
24s, it made me sick.
--
Kate Gerry
Network Manager
kate@quadranet.com
1-888-5-QUADRA Ext 206=A0|=A0www.QuadraNet.com
Dedicated Servers, Colocation, Cloud Services and more.
Datacenters in Los Angeles, Dallas and Miami.
Follow us on: =A0
-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmor=
e
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 9:23 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: We hit half-million: The Cidr Report
> The remainder of the prefixes (45%) shares the same origin AS and the sam=
e path.
> The could be TE prefixes, but as they are identical to their covering=20
> aggregate its hard to appreciate exactly what the engineering intent=20
> may be. I could make a wild guess and call these 45% of more specifics=20
> to be an act of senseless routing vandalism. ( :-) ) This number has been=
steady as a % for the past three years.
This could easily be TE, and a type of TE which would be trivially fixed.
Let's take a simple example of a network with a /22 and 4 POPs. They have t=
he same transit provider(s) at all 4 POPs and a small backbone to connect t=
hem. Each POP gets a /24.
A not-ridiculous way to force their transit provider to carry bits instead =
of clogging their backbone while still ensuring redundancy would be to anno=
unce the /22 at all four POPs and the individual /24 at each individual POP=
. This creates four /24s and a covering /22 with exactly the same path, but=
still has "use" as TE.
Of course, it would be trivial for the network to clean up their act by att=
acking no-export to the /24s. But some people either do not know it exists,=
know how it works, or know BGP well enough to understand it would not harm=
them. Or maybe they are just lazy: "What's 3 extra prefixes in half a mill=
ion?"
The answer to the last question is, frankly, nothing. But 3 prefixes for 30=
K ASNs is an ass-ton. (That's a technical term meaning "lots & lots".)
This is a good time for a marketing effort. Let's see if we can get the tab=
le back under 500K. Everyone check your announcements. Are you announcing m=
ore specifics and a covering aggregate with the same path? Can you delete t=
he more specific? Can you add no-export or another community to keep the mo=
re specifics from the global table?
If you are unsure, ask. I think it would be rather awesome if we saw a quic=
k reversal in table growth and went back under 500K, even if it was short l=
ived. ESPECIALLY if we can do it before we hit 512K prefixes. Would prove t=
he community still cares about, well, the community, not just their own net=
work. Because on the Internet, "your network" is part of the "community", a=
nd things that harm the latter do harm the former, even if it is difficult =
for you to see sometimes.
Who will be the first to pull back a few prefixes?
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Apr 29, 2014, at 03:31 , Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
>=20
> On 29 Apr 2014, at 12:39 pm, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>=20
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:59:43 -0400, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
>>>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 19:41, Chris Boyd <cboyd@gizmopartners.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm in the middle of a physical move. I promise I'll take the 3=20
>>>> deagg'd /24s out as soon as I can.
>>> Do not laugh. If everyone who had 3 de-agg'ed prefixes fixed it, the=20
>>> table would drop precipitously. We all have to do our part.
>>=20
>> Do we have a handle on what percent of the de-aggrs are legitimate=20
>> attempts at TE, and what percent are just whoopsies that should be re-ag=
gregated?
>>=20
>=20
> I made a shot at such a number in a presentation to NANOG in Feb this=20
> year
> (http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2014-02-09-bgp2013.pdf)
>=20
>=20
> If you assume that Traffic Engineering more specifics share a common=20
> origin AS with the covering aggregate, then around 26% of more=20
> specifics are TE advertisements. This number (as a percentage) has=20
> gwon by 5% over the past three years
>=20
>=20
> If you assume that Hole Punching more specifics are more specifics=20
> that use a different origin AS, then these account for 30% of the more sp=
ecifics in today's routing table.
> This number has fallen by 5% over the past three years.
>=20
> The remainder of the prefixes (45%) shares the same origin AS and the sam=
e path.
> The could be TE prefixes, but as they are identical to their covering=20
> aggregate its hard to appreciate exactly what the engineering intent=20
> may be. I could make a wild guess and call these 45% of more specifics=20
> to be an act of senseless routing vandalism. ( :-) ) This number has been=
steady as a % for the past three years.
>=20
> Interestingly, it's the hole punching more specifics that are less=20
> stable, and the senseless routing vandalism more specifics that are more =
stable than the average.
>=20
> thanks,
> Geoff
