Re: Akamai minimum prefix length issue
Hi Patrick, Correct answer. No surprise. And yes, netsupport-...@akamai.com is still the way to go for these types of issues. Thanks for the help! Best, -M< // AS 20940 On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Akamai does not follow BGP perfectly, for many reasons, including BGP > preferring crappy paths much of the time. > > ISPs should email netsupport-...@akamai.com to get help with traffic > engineering, performance, and other questions. (Or at least that used to be > the case a year ago.) > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > > > On May 13, 2015, at 15:33 , Chuck Church 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 > > > > > > > >
Re: Akamai minimum prefix length issue
Akamai does not do this. -- TTFN, patrick > On May 13, 2015, at 15:42 , Jake Mertel 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 > 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 >> >> >> >> >>
Re: Akamai minimum prefix length issue
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 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 > > > > >
Re: Akamai minimum prefix length issue
Akamai does not follow BGP perfectly, for many reasons, including BGP preferring crappy paths much of the time. ISPs should email netsupport-...@akamai.com to get help with traffic engineering, performance, and other questions. (Or at least that used to be the case a year ago.) -- TTFN, patrick > On May 13, 2015, at 15:33 , Chuck Church 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 > > >
Akamai minimum prefix length issue
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
