[77868] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Cidr Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Sat Feb 12 09:59:12 2005
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:58:42 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
To: Philip Smith <pfs@cisco.com>
Cc: "Neil J. McRae" <neil@DOMINO.ORG>, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <420E0228.1040609@cisco.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Hi Philip,
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Philip Smith wrote:
> Quite often many service providers are de-aggregating without knowing it. They
> receive their /20 or whatever from the RIR, but they consider this to be 16
> Class Cs - I'm not joking - and announce them as such to the Internet. I spend
> a lot of time getting these folks to announce aggregates, but it is hard work
> convincing people that this will even work. Even if the RIR recommends that
> they announce their address block, they still consider it as Class Cs - even
> Class Bs for some big allocations. :(
this is getting into what i was implying earlier.. you have wider experience
than me - would you agree that most of the poor deaggregating is not intentional
ie that they're announcing their '16 class Cs' or historically had 2 /21s and
dont even realise they could fix it.. that applies to medium and large providers
too reading this list - how often do they actually check what prefixes they are
sourcing, from my recent work at a couple of european IXes i had a number of
folks email me offlist as they hadnt realised til I sent out an email they had
deaggregation and once it was pointed out they just fixed it.
so to repeat my earlier suggestion - if transit providers, particularly the
larger ones setup scripts to notify their customers daily/weeks of routing
deaggregation do you think we might gain some traction in educating and fixing
this?
Steve
