Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit pricing
* Pradeep Bangera: Question: Does this over-usage bandwidth charge a linear cost function or is it sub-linear like the committed bandwidth pricing? Percentile-based pricing is never linear. It's not even a continuous function of bandwidth usage. This is inherent to the percentile functional, so it doesn't matter how the quantity that comes out of that is priced. -- Florian Weimerfwei...@bfk.de BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network
The NomCom acts as a filter, of sorts. It chooses the candidates that the membership will see. The fact that the NomCom is so closely coupled with the existing leadership has an unfortunate appearance that suggests a bias. I'm unable to say whether the bias exists, is recognized, and/or is reflected in the slate of candidates. But it seems like an easy enough thing to avoid. This statement ignores the existence of the petition process and the relatively low threshold required to get a candidate not approved or selected by the nomcom onto the ballot if there is even a very limited desire to do so. As for my use of existing establishment: I'm of the impression that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most ARIN members don't actively participate. I have my own opinions on why this is, but they aren't worth elaborating at this time - in fact, I suspect many ARIN members here on NANOG can speak for themselves if they wanted to. In any case, this is just my impression. If you would rather share some statistics on member participation, election fairness, etc, then such facts might be more useful. My inclination is that the lack of participation generally indicates that the majority are not upset by the way ARIN is doing things. I know that the beginning of my participation in ARIN was the result of my deciding that some of the ways ARIN was doing things needed changing. ARIN's bylaws firmly place control of ARIN into the hands of its members. if you think that's the wrong approach, i'm curious to hear your reasoning and your proposed alternative. One of ARIN's governance strengths is the availability of petition at many steps, including for candidates rejected by the NomCom. Likewise, as you noted, leaders are elected by the membership. For these reasons I previously noted that ARIN has a pretty good governance structure and I continue to think so. It could be improved by increased member involvement, as well as broader involvement from the community. (For instance, policy petitions should include responses from the entire affected community, not just PPML.) But my criticisms should be interpreted as constructive, and are not an indictment of the whole approach. OK, so you are aware of the petition process after all. That makes your statement at the top of this message somewhat perplexing. I agree that increased member participation would be a good thing. I do not believe that including petition responses from people who aren't willing to join PPML even if it's just long enough to support the petition in question would be useful. It takes almost no effort to join PPML, support a petition, and then leave PPML if you are that determined not to participate. Further, I think that it is reasonable to expect at least a modicum of participation in the policy process in order to participate in the petition process. Requiring supporters to be on PPML at the time they support the petition seems like a reasonable threshold to me. Finally, absent some mechanism such as requiring a PPML subscription, it might be somewhat difficult to avoid petition stuffing. Owen
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network
On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:57 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:05:51 -0500 Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote: As for my use of existing establishment: I'm of the impression that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most ARIN members don't actively participate. I have my own opinions on why this is, but they aren't worth elaborating at this time - in fact, I suspect many ARIN members here on NANOG can speak for themselves if they wanted to. In any case, this is just my impression. If you would rather share some statistics on member participation, election fairness, etc, then such facts might be more useful. i think our participation level in elections is quite high and i'll ask for details and see them published here. Paul - Information regarding ARIN's last election is online here: https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101019_ElectionWinners.html I've attached the relevant section regarding participation, and it should be noted that more than 12% of the potential electorate voted in last year's election. This is typical turnout for our elections, and while I have been told anecdotally that this is relatively high turnout for membership organization, I do not have hard data points for comparison at this time. I would encourage all NANOG members to confirm their designated member representatives with ARIN (i.e. the official organizational contacts) and vote (or if someone else in your organization encourage them to do so) in the upcoming ARIN election for the ARIN Advisory Council and the ARIN Board of Trustee positions. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN === From https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101019_ElectionWinners.html 2010 VOTER STATISTICS 3,690 ARIN members as of 21 September 2010 2,834 Eligible voters* as of 21 September 2010 *ARIN members in good standing with properly registered Designated Member Representatives on record 1 January 2010 355 unique member organizations cast a ballot in the Board of Trustees election. 356 unique member organizations cast a ballot in the Advisory Council election. 364 unique member organizations cast a ballot in either the Board of Trustees or Advisory Council election
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network
On Sep 23, 2011, at 1:40 AM, Jim Duncan wrote: With my parliamentarian hat on: A nominating committee's essential function is to ensure that a minimum number of qualified, vetted individuals are placed on the slate of candidates for election. it should never be a gating function; it is an important safeguard to allow the nomination of qualified individuals outside the nominating committee and from the floor before votes are cast. ... Although organizations may decide for themselves how a nominating committee will operate, it is inconsistent with the general principles of parliamentary process -- whichever standard you choose, Robert's, Sturgis, or another -- for all candidates to be forced to pass through the gauntlet of the nominating committee. Jim - I agree with you in principle regarding the NomCom's essential function, but note that your requirement that the Nominating Committee pass _all_ candidates minimally qualified is not the only valid approach. In the case of ARIN, the NomCom process provides a sufficient number of qualified qualified candidates but is specifically not required to provide all such candidates https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/nomcom_faqs.html The protection of the parliamentary representation principle that you allude to (i.e. the freedom for members of an organization to choose its own leadership) to is instead provided via a petition process. This mechanism provides a comparable safeguard by allowing anyone to be added to the ballot if they desire such and can show some support in the community for their candidacy. Note that ARIN's initial Bylaws only provided for direct selection of new Board members by the ARIN Board from a list of candidates chosen by the ARIN AC. In subsequent years, this was changed to be a separate NomCom, and a petition process requiring support of 15% of the electorate was added. The petition threshold was then lowered to 5% of the electorate, and then again recently lowered to be now 2% of the electorate. The ARIN Board has reviewed the election process in each of the recent years to see if any further changes are required. Further evolution of this process is quite possible, and discussion here (or on an ARIN mailing list) will help inform the ARIN Board about the community views on this matter. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: Verizon / FiOS network
Not able to connect to 146.115.38.21 via fios or verizon 3g so the problem doesn't seem to be fios specific. Sent from my IPhone (pardon the typo's) On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Ryan Pugatch r...@linux.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch r...@linux.com wrote: Hi, Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network? Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to us (on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone. it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some semblance of destination address, port, protocol... just sayin'! -chris (fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on) HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443. Sample IP: 146.115.38.21
Re: Verizon / FiOS network
On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Ryan Pugatch wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch r...@linux.com wrote: Hi, Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network? Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to us (on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone. it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some semblance of destination address, port, protocol... just sayin'! -chris (fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on) HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443. Sample IP: 146.115.38.21 From FiOS and non-FiOS locations I get the same result: HTTP: timeout HTTPS: connects and loads (Zimbra webmail page) also can ping via ICMP just fine Traceroute from fios is via Level3 from the DC area to Boston where it is handed off to RCN and then 2 hops to the destination
Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit
*//Sorry for the earlier misguiding email subject//* Dear All, Thanks for all the replies! I would like to see more, to learn more! Since I (Research Assistant) am not from network operations and management domain, I am trying to model the transit pricing function. In my research work, I am using a pricing model from this work! This pricing model is as follows:-- Transit price = Constant * (aggregate traffic)^0.75, which is exactly similar to the one described by Ryan Malayter in his earlier message. Hence I am wondering, whether the pricing should be a linear(CDR*[95th peak]) or sub-linear (like the above)? With Regards Pradeep Research Assistant Institute IMDEA Networks Madrid, Spain On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 09:40 -0500, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: Send NANOG mailing list submissions to nanog@nanog.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nanog-requ...@nanog.org You can reach the person managing the list at nanog-ow...@nanog.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of NANOG digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit pricing (Florian Weimer) 2. Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network (Owen DeLong) 3. Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network (John Curran) 4. Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network (John Curran) 5. Re: Verizon / FiOS network (Randy McAnally) 6. Re: Verizon / FiOS network (Ryan Rawdon) 7. Re: Verizon / FiOS network (chris) 8. Commercial DNS service opinions? (Jay Ashworth) 9. Re: Commercial DNS service opinions? (Christopher Morrow) -- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:15:46 + From: Florian Weimer fwei...@bfk.de To: Pradeep Bangera pradeep.bang...@imdea.org Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit pricing Message-ID: 824o03ohjx@mid.bfk.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 * Pradeep Bangera: Question: Does this over-usage bandwidth charge a linear cost function or is it sub-linear like the committed bandwidth pricing? Percentile-based pricing is never linear. It's not even a continuous function of bandwidth usage. This is inherent to the percentile functional, so it doesn't matter how the quantity that comes out of that is priced. -- Florian Weimerfwei...@bfk.de BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 -- Message: 2 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:01:23 -0700 From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com To: Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net Cc: Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org, nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network Message-ID: 277a7743-14e7-4fc2-91d2-e0772f262...@delong.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii The NomCom acts as a filter, of sorts. It chooses the candidates that the membership will see. The fact that the NomCom is so closely coupled with the existing leadership has an unfortunate appearance that suggests a bias. I'm unable to say whether the bias exists, is recognized, and/or is reflected in the slate of candidates. But it seems like an easy enough thing to avoid. This statement ignores the existence of the petition process and the relatively low threshold required to get a candidate not approved or selected by the nomcom onto the ballot if there is even a very limited desire to do so. As for my use of existing establishment: I'm of the impression that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most ARIN members don't actively participate. I have my own opinions on why this is, but they aren't worth elaborating at this time - in fact, I suspect many ARIN members here on NANOG can speak for themselves if they wanted to. In any case, this is just my impression. If you would rather share some statistics on member participation, election fairness, etc, then such facts might be more useful. My inclination is that the lack of participation generally indicates that the majority are not upset by the way ARIN is doing things. I know that the beginning of my participation in ARIN was the result of my deciding that some of the ways ARIN was doing things needed changing. ARIN's bylaws firmly place control of ARIN into the hands of its members. if you think that's the wrong approach, i'm curious to hear your
Re: Verizon / FiOS network
My original email wasn't too clear. This host specifically does not allow 80, but does allow 443. What I was trying to explain is that we are seeing the issue occur on several hosts on both 80 and 443. Sorry for the confusion. Ryan HTTP doesnt appear to be open from any network I try Verizon or otherwise so I'm not sure its network related On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Ryan Rawdon r...@u13.net wrote: On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Ryan Pugatch wrote: On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch r...@linux.com wrote: Hi, Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network? Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to us (on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone. it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some semblance of destination address, port, protocol... just sayin'! -chris (fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on) HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443. Sample IP: 146.115.38.21 From FiOS and non-FiOS locations I get the same result: HTTP: timeout HTTPS: connects and loads (Zimbra webmail page) also can ping via ICMP just fine Traceroute from fios is via Level3 from the DC area to Boston where it is handed off to RCN and then 2 hops to the destination
Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:51:59 +0200, Pradeep Bangera said: Malayter in his earlier message. Hence I am wondering, whether the pricing should be a linear(CDR*[95th peak]) or sub-linear (like the above)? Yes. :) I think you'll find actual contracts out in the wild that do it either way, and probably lots of variants as well, because the organizations buying the transit have differing motivations. Some will want to minimize their monthly expenses at all costs and hope they don't get a surprise billing spike due to high traffic, while others may very well be willing to pay 10% more a month for a guaranteed no surprises billing structure for budgeting reasons. Now, if you have a good model for how likely is each method to result in surprises in the real world ;) pgpJPvrmClKxQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
BGP visibility for /24 End User Allocation
Long time on-again-off-again lurker. Looking to multihome in the most efficient mode. Our two upstreams are AS11530 (Embarq) and AS10796 (Time Warner). Diverse routed fiber from each at 10Mbps. Our traffic profile is highly asymmetric as a consumer of bandwidth (12-15Mbps average inbound aggregate, 2-3Mbps aggregate very bursty outbound). Years ago when I tinkered with BGP there were substantial issues with getting any prefix too small through filters to see the greater Internet (IIRC it was a /19 at that time). Given we really could justify a /24 realistically, what is the current status of filtering in terms of having that /24 get to the vast majority of the Internet given the two providers in question? Thanks for any advice in advance. EKG
Re: BGP visibility for /24 End User Allocation
On 9/23/11 11:29 AM, Eric Germann wrote: Long time on-again-off-again lurker. Looking to multihome in the most efficient mode. Our two upstreams are AS11530 (Embarq) and AS10796 (Time Warner). Diverse routed fiber from each at 10Mbps. Our traffic profile is highly asymmetric as a consumer of bandwidth (12-15Mbps average inbound aggregate, 2-3Mbps aggregate very bursty outbound). Years ago when I tinkered with BGP there were substantial issues with getting any prefix too small through filters to see the greater Internet (IIRC it was a /19 at that time). Given we really could justify a /24 realistically, what is the current status of filtering in terms of having that /24 get to the vast majority of the Internet given the two providers in question? Thanks for any advice in advance. A /24 is has been the gold standard for a while, you shouldn't have any problems. ~Seth
Re: BGP visibility for /24 End User Allocation
We have routed a couple of /24s via BGP for a long time. 10+ years for one of them. We have never had any issues. If you get an End-User assignment from ARIN, it is probably even easier than getting providers to route a /24 out of another provider's space. -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | Vice President - IT Services | Red Hat Certified Engineer | First Network Group, Inc. | (800)578-6381, Opt. 1 - Original Message - On 9/23/11 11:29 AM, Eric Germann wrote: Long time on-again-off-again lurker. Looking to multihome in the most efficient mode. Our two upstreams are AS11530 (Embarq) and AS10796 (Time Warner). Diverse routed fiber from each at 10Mbps. Our traffic profile is highly asymmetric as a consumer of bandwidth (12-15Mbps average inbound aggregate, 2-3Mbps aggregate very bursty outbound). Years ago when I tinkered with BGP there were substantial issues with getting any prefix too small through filters to see the greater Internet (IIRC it was a /19 at that time). Given we really could justify a /24 realistically, what is the current status of filtering in terms of having that /24 get to the vast majority of the Internet given the two providers in question? Thanks for any advice in advance. A /24 is has been the gold standard for a while, you shouldn't have any problems. ~Seth
Weekly Routing Table Report
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith pfsi...@gmail.com. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 24 Sep, 2011 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary BGP routing table entries examined: 374059 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 168238 Deaggregation factor: 2.22 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 184911 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 38886 Prefixes per ASN: 9.62 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 32232 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 15494 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:5223 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:138 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.3 Max AS path length visible: 35 Max AS path prepend of ASN (23456) 31 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 1402 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 772 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 1762 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:1431 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:3276 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 97 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2479145472 Equivalent to 147 /8s, 196 /16s and 194 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 66.9 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 66.9 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 91.4 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 156426 APNIC Region Analysis Summary - Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:93852 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 30727 APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.05 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 90378 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:37990 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:4575 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 19.75 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1262 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:709 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.5 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 19 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 88 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 627667040 Equivalent to 37 /8s, 105 /16s and 112 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 79.6 APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 131072-132095, 132096-133119 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:143860 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:73754 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.95 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 115959 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 48009 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:14685 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 7.90 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:
Re: BGP visibility for /24 End User Allocation
Shouldn't be an issue. We're advertising 4 x \24s and using much more BW. David. On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Eric Germann egerm...@limanews.com wrote: Long time on-again-off-again lurker. Looking to multihome in the most efficient mode. Our two upstreams are AS11530 (Embarq) and AS10796 (Time Warner). Diverse routed fiber from each at 10Mbps. Our traffic profile is highly asymmetric as a consumer of bandwidth (12-15Mbps average inbound aggregate, 2-3Mbps aggregate very bursty outbound). Years ago when I tinkered with BGP there were substantial issues with getting any prefix too small through filters to see the greater Internet (IIRC it was a /19 at that time). Given we really could justify a /24 realistically, what is the current status of filtering in terms of having that /24 get to the vast majority of the Internet given the two providers in question? Thanks for any advice in advance. EKG
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network
A nominating committee's essential function is to ensure that a minimum number of qualified, vetted individuals are placed on the slate of candidates for election. it should ensure that folk who are not *technically* qualified, e.g. not members, not human people, ... are not on the slate. period. it should never be a gating function fact: it has been randy
BGP Update Report
BGP Update Report Interval: 15-Sep-11 -to- 22-Sep-11 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS886673955 2.6% 153.8 -- BTC-AS Bulgarian Telecommunication Company Plc. 2 - AS982957553 2.0% 49.7 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone 3 - AS924632010 1.1%2462.3 -- GTA-AP Teleguam Holdings, LLC 4 - AS38040 30394 1.1%2171.0 -- GLOBAL-TRANSIT-TOT-IIG-TH TOT Public Company Limited 5 - AS17488 26505 0.9% 27.4 -- HATHWAY-NET-AP Hathway IP Over Cable Internet 6 - AS631624478 0.9% 185.4 -- AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec Communications, Inc. 7 - AS32528 24102 0.8%3012.8 -- ABBOTT Abbot Labs 8 - AS580022082 0.8% 116.8 -- DNIC-ASBLK-05800-06055 - DoD Network Information Center 9 - AS755219628 0.7% 13.9 -- VIETEL-AS-AP Vietel Corporation 10 - AS949818155 0.6% 21.4 -- BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd. 11 - AS16916 16921 0.6% 940.1 -- NETLOGIC-WEST - INFINIPLEX LLC DBA NETLOGIC 12 - AS24560 16731 0.6% 14.2 -- AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services 13 - AS38543 15811 0.6%3162.2 -- IBM-TH-AS-AP IBM THAILAND NETWORK 14 - AS17974 14641 0.5% 7.2 -- TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia 15 - AS840214638 0.5% 13.3 -- CORBINA-AS OJSC Vimpelcom 16 - AS14420 13575 0.5% 18.5 -- CORPORACION NACIONAL DE TELECOMUNICACIONES - CNT EP 17 - AS845213428 0.5% 18.8 -- TE-AS TE-AS 18 - AS947512473 0.4% 831.5 -- WU-TH-AP Walailuk University 19 - AS25620 11759 0.4% 59.1 -- COTAS LTDA. 20 - AS45595 11724 0.4% 27.1 -- PKTELECOM-AS-PK Pakistan Telecom Company Limited TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix) Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS50975 11193 0.4%5596.5 -- AVX_AS AVX Czech republic s.r.o 2 - AS563754434 0.2%4434.0 -- IKRF Imam Khomeini Relief Foundation IKRF 3 - AS3976 3507 0.1%3507.0 -- ERX-NURI-ASN I.Net Technologies Inc. 4 - AS38543 15811 0.6%3162.2 -- IBM-TH-AS-AP IBM THAILAND NETWORK 5 - AS32528 24102 0.8%3012.8 -- ABBOTT Abbot Labs 6 - AS924632010 1.1%2462.3 -- GTA-AP Teleguam Holdings, LLC 7 - AS227932202 0.1%2202.0 -- CASSOCORP - CASSO Corporation 8 - AS38040 30394 1.1%2171.0 -- GLOBAL-TRANSIT-TOT-IIG-TH TOT Public Company Limited 9 - AS264931694 0.1%1694.0 -- GHI - Group Health Incorporated 10 - AS9562 8340 0.3%1191.4 -- MSU-TH-AP Mahasarakham University 11 - AS450091079 0.0%1079.0 -- MRSNET-AS OJSC Multyservisnaya radioset 12 - AS174256321 0.2%1053.5 -- EPA-AS-TH Provincial Electricity Authority of Thailand. 13 - AS16916 16921 0.6% 940.1 -- NETLOGIC-WEST - INFINIPLEX LLC DBA NETLOGIC 14 - AS947512473 0.4% 831.5 -- WU-TH-AP Walailuk University 15 - AS3454 8313 0.3% 831.3 -- Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon 16 - AS5868 718 0.0% 718.0 -- DNIC-ASBLK-05800-06055 - DoD Network Information Center 17 - AS48333 687 0.0% 687.0 -- AATVC AATVC CJSC 18 - AS11028 567 0.0% 567.0 -- SETIATHOME - SETIATHOME 19 - AS38528 512 0.0% 512.0 -- LANIC-AS-AP Lao National Internet Committee 20 - AS196741485 0.1% 495.0 -- NAVPOINT - Navpoint Internet TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 1 - 206.80.93.0/2416860 0.6% AS16916 -- NETLOGIC-WEST - INFINIPLEX LLC DBA NETLOGIC 2 - 202.92.235.0/24 13828 0.5% AS9498 -- BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd. 3 - 130.36.34.0/2412024 0.4% AS32528 -- ABBOTT Abbot Labs 4 - 130.36.35.0/2412024 0.4% AS32528 -- ABBOTT Abbot Labs 5 - 66.248.96.0/2110808 0.4% AS6316 -- AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec Communications, Inc. 6 - 66.248.120.0/21 10732 0.4% AS6316 -- AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec Communications, Inc. 7 - 200.23.202.0/248161 0.3% AS3454 -- Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon 8 - 213.16.48.0/24 6644 0.2% AS8866 -- BTC-AS Bulgarian Telecommunication Company Plc. 9 - 145.36.122.0/246282 0.2% AS7046 -- RFC2270-UUNET-CUSTOMER - MCI Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon Business 10 - 109.75.0.0/21 5910 0.2% AS50975 -- AVX_AS AVX Czech republic s.r.o 11 - 61.90.164.0/24 5610 0.2% AS38543 -- IBM-TH-AS-AP IBM THAILAND NETWORK 12 - 58.97.61.0/24 5608 0.2% AS38543 -- IBM-TH-AS-AP IBM THAILAND NETWORK 13 - 109.75.8.0/23 5283 0.2% AS50975 -- AVX_AS AVX Czech republic s.r.o 14 - 180.180.253.0/24 5142 0.2% AS38040 -- GLOBAL-TRANSIT-TOT-IIG-TH
The Cidr Report
This report has been generated at Fri Sep 23 21:12:15 2011 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
16-09-11374860 220342
17-09-11375515 220511
18-09-11375310 220632
19-09-11375594 220892
20-09-11375707 221389
21-09-11376330 220810
22-09-11376744 221221
23-09-11377111 221339
AS Summary
38986 Number of ASes in routing system
16483 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
3560 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS6389 : BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc.
108362720 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street
Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').
--- 23Sep11 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
Table 377486 221314 15617241.4% All ASes
AS6389 3560 229 333193.6% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
BellSouth.net Inc.
AS18566 1913 379 153480.2% COVAD - Covad Communications
Co.
AS4766 2503 973 153061.1% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom
AS22773 1458 109 134992.5% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC -
Cox Communications Inc.
AS4755 1552 225 132785.5% TATACOMM-AS TATA
Communications formerly VSNL
is Leading ISP
AS4323 1625 394 123175.8% TWTC - tw telecom holdings,
inc.
AS1785 1829 781 104857.3% AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
Communications, Inc.
AS28573 1368 344 102474.9% NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A.
AS19262 1395 400 99571.3% VZGNI-TRANSIT - Verizon Online
LLC
AS7552 1398 406 99271.0% VIETEL-AS-AP Vietel
Corporation
AS7303 1162 311 85173.2% Telecom Argentina S.A.
AS10620 1678 839 83950.0% Telmex Colombia S.A.
AS18101 939 146 79384.5% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN
Reliance Communications
Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI
AS24560 1182 405 77765.7% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti
Airtel Ltd., Telemedia
Services
AS8151 1420 647 77354.4% Uninet S.A. de C.V.
AS30036 1420 682 73852.0% MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS -
Mediacom Communications Corp
AS4808 1072 335 73768.8% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP
network China169 Beijing
Province Network
AS7545 1599 875 72445.3% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet
Pty Ltd
AS3356 1106 451 65559.2% LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications
AS14420 734 92 64287.5% CORPORACION NACIONAL DE
TELECOMUNICACIONES - CNT EP
AS17676 679 70 60989.7% GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp.
AS20115 1597 989 60838.1% CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter
Communications
AS22561 972 364 60862.6% DIGITAL-TELEPORT - Digital
Teleport Inc.
AS3549 1060 453 60757.3% GBLX Global Crossing Ltd.
AS17974 2003 1411 59229.6% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT
Telekomunikasi Indonesia
AS4804 660 87 57386.8% MPX-AS Microplex PTY LTD
AS22047 580 28 55295.2% VTR BANDA ANCHA S.A.
AS7011 1181 656 52544.5% FRONTIER-AND-CITIZENS -
Frontier Communications of
America, Inc.
AS4780 761 242 51968.2% SEEDNET Digital United Inc.
AS8402 966 447 51953.7%
Strange static route
Hi, I have seen a few operators adding static routes like: 0.0.0.0/1 some next-hop and 128.0.0.0/1 some next-hop. Why would anyone want to add such static routes? What does 0.0.0.0/1 mean. Note that the netmask is 1 and not 0. Thanks, Glen
Re: Strange static route
Protection against learning a bad default route through whatever routing protocol they are learning, since these two routes would be more specific than any typical default route. They probably got burned learning a default route. On Sep 23, 2011, at 7:12 PM, Glen Kent glen.k...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I have seen a few operators adding static routes like: 0.0.0.0/1 some next-hop and 128.0.0.0/1 some next-hop. Why would anyone want to add such static routes? What does 0.0.0.0/1 mean. Note that the netmask is 1 and not 0. Thanks, Glen
Re: Strange static route
Wouldn't it make more sense to filter in bound default? or use a single static default if you where worried about that? -jim On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Joel Maslak jmas...@antelope.net wrote: Protection against learning a bad default route through whatever routing protocol they are learning, since these two routes would be more specific than any typical default route. They probably got burned learning a default route. On Sep 23, 2011, at 7:12 PM, Glen Kent glen.k...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I have seen a few operators adding static routes like: 0.0.0.0/1 some next-hop and 128.0.0.0/1 some next-hop. Why would anyone want to add such static routes? What does 0.0.0.0/1 mean. Note that the netmask is 1 and not 0. Thanks, Glen
Re: Strange static route
On Sat, 24 Sep 2011, Glen Kent wrote: Hi, I have seen a few operators adding static routes like: 0.0.0.0/1 some next-hop and 128.0.0.0/1 some next-hop. It means half the IPv4 internet goes one way. Half goes the other way. -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Strange static route
Well considering that native multicast isn't enabled end to end Internet wide, and class E address space isn't used, it's more like half your IPv4 Internet goes one way, and ~38% goes the other way... :-b Stefan Fouant JNCIE-M, JNCIE-ER, JNCIE-SEC, JNCI Technical Trainer, Juniper Networks Follow us on Twitter @JuniperEducate Sent from my iPad On Sep 23, 2011, at 10:15 PM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote: On Sat, 24 Sep 2011, Glen Kent wrote: Hi, I have seen a few operators adding static routes like: 0.0.0.0/1 some next-hop and 128.0.0.0/1 some next-hop. It means half the IPv4 internet goes one way. Half goes the other way. -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Strange static route
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:57 PM, jim deleskie deles...@gmail.com wrote: Wouldn't it make more sense to filter in bound default? or use a single static default if you where worried about that? there's lots of smarter things you COULD do :) this, it seems to me, is a great thing for the operations bcp folks to work out though :)
