Re: Akamai minimum prefix length issue

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

Akamai does not do this.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> On May 13, 2015, at 15:42 , Jake Mertel <jake () nobistech net> wrote:
>
> Chuck,
>
> Just throwing this out there as a possibility, I've seen similar issues
> with other ISPs wherein the root cause was their BGP speaking routers using
> a filter set published by (I'm almost certain) Cisco that, among other
> things, blocks announcements of any prefix that is smaller then the minimum
> prefix size allocated from an RIR for the prefix in question. If you look
> at https://www.arin.net/knowledge/ip_blocks.html you will see that they now
> say "All prefixes have the potential to have a /24 minimum size allocation
> issued from them.", but this was not always the case. For example, looking
> at the archive.org copy of that page from
> https://web.archive.org/web/20140107021136/https://www.arin.net/knowledge/ip_blocks.html
> on January 7, 2014, the smallest prefix they allocated from 162/8 was a
> /22. I did some quick google'ing but was unable to find a copy of the
> filter set in question. I poked a few of my colleagues and will  let you
> know if I'm able to find a copy for reference.
>
> --Jake
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Chuck Church <chuckchurch () gmail com>
> wrote:
>
> > Anyone from Akamai (or who might know),
> >
> >        Having an issue with AS 20940 either not seeing or ignoring a /23
> > we're announcing, and following a /22 to another path.  Other ISPs our
> > upstream peers with see the /23.  I didn't see a looking glass for Akamai
> > to
> > verify.  Anyone from Akamai able to help?  Prefix in question is
> > 162.220.232.0/23.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chuck