[6366] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Cidr Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pushpendra Mohta)
Sun Dec 1 20:00:02 1996
From: Pushpendra Mohta <pushp@CERF.NET>
To: tbates@cisco.com (Tony Bates)
Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 16:57:29 -0800 (PST)
Cc: bmanning@isi.edu, randy@psg.com, pferguso@cisco.com, nanog@merit.edu,
eof-list@ripe.net, apops@apnic.net
In-Reply-To: <199612012357.PAA20821@trix.cisco.com> from "Tony Bates" at Dec 1, 96 03:57:07 pm
>
> This is not to pick on CERFNET but just to highlight a problem of
> actually tracking the size of the routing table in general. This
> CERFnet case seems to be this way becuase it is a direct peer of
> Bill's box even though I can see no reason why the more specifics are
> needed.
>
> Looking a little more it seems a large amount of more specifics are being
> announced to Bill's boxe which aren't being announced to the xara.net
> router. Perhaps ISPs are taking more care at places like MAE-East with
> their outbound filters than they are at Bill's peering point even though
> Bill only has 6 active EBGP neighbors and the xara.net router has 39
> ;-(.
Apparently true. The specifics leak from one of our CIDR blocks
was only being made to Bill's peering point ( otherwise known
as MAE-LA or MELEE when first started ;-) ). Being fixed shortly. Thanks
On the larger question, it would be difficult to find two places
on the net with a consistent view of the global routing table
although for trend analysis both MAE East and the Sprint NAP should have
a more of a representative view than MAE-LA.
--pushpendra
Pushpendra Mohta pushp@cerf.net +1 619 455 3908
