[179923] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Akamai minimum prefix length issue
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed May 13 15:46:22 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAOhg=Rwo14fHAbE=pou+DzFkTsR2xJQ8p2OyU+1gJY3Xd12R6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 15:43:32 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Akamai does not do this.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> On May 13, 2015, at 15:42 , Jake Mertel <jake@nobistech.net> wrote:
>=20
> Chuck,
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> --Jake
>=20
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Chuck Church <chuckchurch@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>=20
>> Anyone from Akamai (or who might know),
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Thanks,
>>=20
>> Chuck
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
