nanog mailing list archives
Re: Routes and routing tables
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis () ans net>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 13:29:39 -0400
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
Current thread:
- Routes and routing tables Christian Nielsen (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Robert Bowman (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Jon Zeeff (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Paul A Vixie (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Avi Freedman (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Curtis Villamizar (Apr 29)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Avi Freedman (Apr 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Routes and routing tables Avi Freedman (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Robert Bowman (Apr 27)