[2702] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Routes and routing tables
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Curtis Villamizar)
Mon Apr 29 13:33:30 1996
To: Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net>
cc: cnielsen@vii.com (Christian Nielsen), nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: curtis@ans.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:51:41 PDT."
<199604280751.AAA00306@elite.exodus.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 13:29:39 -0400
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net>
In message <199604280751.AAA00306@elite.exodus.net>, Robert Bowman writes:
> There is a HUGE problem with regards to this. When I look at "certain"
> providers and the way they are advertising, this is very common:
>
> 206.79.0.0/16
> 206.79.108.0/24
> 206.79.224.0/22
>
> etc etc.
Note that only 206.79.0.0/16 is registered in the IRR. 206.79.0.0/17,
206.40.64.0/19 are also registered but not announced. I don't know
the situation in this case but they may be intending to aggreagate but
not entirely suceeding. For example, the /24 may be a DMZ between
providers which another provider needs for management.
I'm working on some routing evaluation software and a secondary
benefit of this may be to get some stats on this sort of problem.
There may be over 1,000 such more specific prefixes, not registered in
the and covered by aggregates that are registered in the IRR and
announced. There are still bugs in the radix tree code but ones I've
checked manually this morning indicate that the bugs may be reducing
the estimate rather than inflating it.
Curtis
