[75442] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Cidr Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Fri Nov 12 20:11:41 2004
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:10:21 -0800
To: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
Cc: cidr-report@potaroo.net, nanog@merit.edu, eof-list@ripe.net,
apops@apops.net, routing-wg@ripe.net, afnog@afnog.org,
swinog@swinog.ch
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>>> ASnum NetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
>>>
>>> AS18566 751 6 745 99.2% CVAD Covad Communications
>>> AS4134 825 178 647 78.4% CHINANET-BACKBONE
>>> No.31,Jin-rong Street
>>> AS4323 794 223 571 71.9% TWTC Time Warner Telecom
>>> AS6197 814 430 384 47.2% BNS-14 BellSouth Network
>>> Solutions, Inc
>>> AS22773 401 17 384 95.8% CXA Cox Communications Inc.
>>> AS27364 413 45 368 89.1% ARMC Armstrong Cable Services
>>> AS701 1230 884 346 28.1% UU UUNET Technologies, Inc.
>>> AS22909 412 81 331 80.3% CMCS Comcast Cable
>>> Communications, Inc.
>> e.g. is AS18566 the origin AS for 751 prefixes that could be
>> collapsed to 6?
>
> not to justify the expense, but perhaps covad is renumbering from one
> block to another? Looking at their advertisments I see lots of /23 or /24
> blocks inside their larger covering routes... So either they deaggregated
> to renumber more gracefully, or they forgot their prefix-list outbound to
> williams and exodus ?
>
> perhaps covad can explain? or silently cover up the 'mistake' (which is
> acceptable as well...)
it's not just covad. they're just such an egregious case among
many socially and technically irresponsible polluters.
randy
