February 2001 - routing-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RE: Migration issues: route creation
by Lu, Ping 13 Feb '01

13 Feb '01

I think that's me :) Let's talk about the GLOBAL issues and the practical use of RR. For all RIRs like RIPE, ARIN, APNIC and so on. They are in a regulartory position so they OWN all the objects (AN, PN, MT) and they seldom need to CROSS-REFERENCE with other RIRs. So the self-contained assumption (all references should be resloved locally ) is fine with RIR. But for the LIRs (especially the ISPs) RR has a more practical use, like auto-generated access-lists and as-path filters. Almost all the major ISPs have their own tools or use the public tool like RAToolSet to pull data from RR then auto-generate the configiuration for their routers. Now here is the fun part. As a global player we have to create a list of objects ( AN, RT ) from all the RIRs and with any public peer (registered in one of the RIRs ) we have to create a list of rather private objects ( MT, PN, RO ). But it becomes too difficult to duplicate those private objects with up-to-date information, so the best way is to REFERENCE their LEGAL objects in any one of the RIRs ( of course if the AS itself agree us to do so ). This is where the GLOBALLY UNIQUE nic-hdl comes in and in a more generic sense, how about GLOBALLY UNIQUE maintainer name ? Does this sound like domain name system ? Sooner or later RR has to face the GLOBAL issue like DNS, IP address and E-MAIL did. We have already seen some of the global issues showed up in the RR domain ( referral, globally unique nic-hdl ) and there will be more and more name-collision in the future. So why not adopt a naming system like DNS or E-MAIL ? Here is my favorite quote from RFC2622 ----------------------------------------------------- <nic-handle> is a uniquely assigned identifier word used by routing, address allocation, and other registries to unambiguously refer to contact information. Person and role classes map NIC handles to actual person names, and contact information. ----------------------------------------------------- Hmmm! So RPSL already specify the need to use information from OTHER REGISTRIES. I rest my case. Ping Lu Cable & Wireless USA Network Tools and Analysis Group W: +1-703-292-2359 E: plu(a)cw.net > -----Original Message----- > From: SchmitzJo(a)aol.com [mailto:SchmitzJo@aol.com] > Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 7:32 PM > To: andrei(a)ripe.net; reimp-mig-tf(a)ripe.net; db-wg(a)ripe.net; > routing-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: Migration issues: route creation > > > Dear Andrei, > > you wrote that there will be problems creating duplicates of > aut-nums and > routes in other registries if they do not formally belong > there due to the > authorization rules introduced with the RPSL transition at RIPE. You > suggested two solutions: > > > Possible solutions to this problem are: > > > > 1. Send such registration requests to the Database Administration > > (ripe-dbm) who will perform registration by overriding > security (and > > performing necessary checks before). This puts additional load on > > ripe-dbm and creates duplicate objects in the RIPE database and > > "foreign" IRR. > > > > 2. Do not allow such registrations. In this case some ISPs > will need to > > change their peering policy and accept routing information from a > > "foreign" IRR. > > > > Your comments and suggestions are highly appreciated. > > > I did not yet see an answer to your question. However, I > believe that your > first suggestion should *not* be followed. I definitely would > want to avoid > opening "side" paths to enter data into the RIPE database. > Using ripe-dbm > should be the exception for special requirements. For > everything else, the > robots should be used. > > Regarding duplication: this had originally been introduced to > help people > along while mirroring was not working. With RIPE having > transitioned to RPSL, > we will have compatible formats again, and do not need > duplication anymore - > under the prerequisite that you are properly coordinating > with RADB and any > other major IRR. I am inclined to say, that avoiding > duplication is the > purpose of the effort! > > Looking at your second proposal, I believe that you are > saying the right > thing, but phrased it a little different. Peering policy is > probably a term > which may be confused with routing policy - and nobody needs > to change its > routing policy by looking at several IRRs now. Actually, I > believe that there > is not much of an issue: Smaller ISPs have always registered > in only one IRR; > only bigger providers with international reach have entered > their information > into several IRRs and duplicated data, but then also using > data from all IRRs > they registered into. It should not be too much of a pain to use this > information to continue with this practice after the RPSL transition. > > Those parties who do not agree, speak up loudly now! > Thanks > Joachim > > --- JS395-RIPE -- standard disclaimer --- >

1 0

Re: Migration issues: route creation
by SchmitzJo＠aol.com 13 Feb '01

13 Feb '01

Dear Andrei, you wrote that there will be problems creating duplicates of aut-nums and routes in other registries if they do not formally belong there due to the authorization rules introduced with the RPSL transition at RIPE. You suggested two solutions: > Possible solutions to this problem are: > > 1. Send such registration requests to the Database Administration > (ripe-dbm) who will perform registration by overriding security (and > performing necessary checks before). This puts additional load on > ripe-dbm and creates duplicate objects in the RIPE database and > "foreign" IRR. > > 2. Do not allow such registrations. In this case some ISPs will need to > change their peering policy and accept routing information from a > "foreign" IRR. > > Your comments and suggestions are highly appreciated. > I did not yet see an answer to your question. However, I believe that your first suggestion should *not* be followed. I definitely would want to avoid opening "side" paths to enter data into the RIPE database. Using ripe-dbm should be the exception for special requirements. For everything else, the robots should be used. Regarding duplication: this had originally been introduced to help people along while mirroring was not working. With RIPE having transitioned to RPSL, we will have compatible formats again, and do not need duplication anymore - under the prerequisite that you are properly coordinating with RADB and any other major IRR. I am inclined to say, that avoiding duplication is the purpose of the effort! Looking at your second proposal, I believe that you are saying the right thing, but phrased it a little different. Peering policy is probably a term which may be confused with routing policy - and nobody needs to change its routing policy by looking at several IRRs now. Actually, I believe that there is not much of an issue: Smaller ISPs have always registered in only one IRR; only bigger providers with international reach have entered their information into several IRRs and duplicated data, but then also using data from all IRRs they registered into. It should not be too much of a pain to use this information to continue with this practice after the RPSL transition. Those parties who do not agree, speak up loudly now! Thanks Joachim --- JS395-RIPE -- standard disclaimer ---

1 0

1. draft minutes from the RIPE38 Routing WG session
by SchmitzJo＠aol.com 13 Feb '01

13 Feb '01

R I P E 3 8 A M S T E R D A M Routing Working Group Session 24-Jan-2001 Draft Minutes Chair: Joachim Schmitz (JS395-RIPE) Scribe: Engin Gunduz Participants: 97 A. Preliminaries (Joachim Schmitz) The chair man welcomed the participants, and distributed the participants' list to sign in. Engin Gunduz volunteered to take the minutes. The WG agenda was accepted without changes. The minutes of the previous meeting at RIPE37 were accepted by the participants, and are thus declared final. B. The Hermes Project (Giuseppe di Battista, University of Rome) [ The presentation will become available shortly at the RIPE web server ] URL: http://www.dia.uniroma3.it/~hermes The idea of the Hermes project is the integration and visualisation of Routing Registries Information and BGP Routing Data. Consequently, major targets are to o explore the Internet interactions at AS level o visualise interactive maps o show inconsistencies Hermes is based upon a o 3-tier architecture o repository of routing information o mediator for the information integrity. o graph drawing module After presenting the general outline and functionality, Guiseppe showed a demo prerecorded with a screencam from a life example around AS137. This demo included - peering activities (neighbor ASs, and routes) supplemented with more info from the IRR database - in/out routing policies - paths to another AS with routes from that AS and description from the IRR supplemented by AS macros involvede, plus which ASs are part of them Another demo showed more details around routing policies, where the AS was initially selected by its name in the IRR - showing inconsistencies of registered policies of connected ASs The results can be viewed as text and in a graphical map. Guiseppe continued with more details on the internal structure of how Hermes works. In particular he described - three tier architecture - data integration - mediator for data processing - graph drawing around the difficulties introduced by locally sparse and extremely dense parts requiring complex algorithms Eventually, current and future work was summarized: - moving from RIPE-181 to RPSL format (March 2001) - adding new sources of information (RIS project?) - distinguishing between different sources of information (June 2001) - visualisation and animation of route flaps (June 2001) - looking inside an AS: traceoute (June 2001) - looking inside an AS: OSPF (June 2001) Finally, a brief distinction compared to other similar projects was given: o skitter (Caida) [global view of Internet] o ASExplorer (IPMA) [specific view of one single AS] o Hermes [in between] In the brief following discussion, the impression was that Hermes is a useful tool, comprising information from different sources. Q (chair): It is not entirely obvious which data comes from which source. Is this shown in the tool? A: It should be relatively easy, and is actually planned. Q (Ping Lu): What are the means of output? A: So far, the data can only be printed. Since this is a Java applet, it is difficult to produce output in many formats and save them to local disk As final summary, Guiseppe stressed that he welcomes suggestions like this, and asked for any additional input to be sent to him and his group (contact details on the web page http://www.dia.uniroma3.it/~hermes) C. RIS Report (Henk Uijterwaal, Thomas Franchetti, Antony Antony, RIPE NCC) [ Presentation is online at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/np/Talks/0101_RIPE38_HU/ http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/np/Talks/0101_RIPE38_AA/ http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/np/Talks/0101_RIPE38_TF/ ] The RIS group gave three presentations 1. Henk Uijterwaal In the introduction, Henk listed a few administrative items - RIS has progressed that for that it will be turned into a regular operational service very soon - To support this move, they are now hiring a 2nd network engineer which will bring the headcount to 2.5 FTE's plus 1 student (from 1-Apr on) - Henk again announced the PAM-2001 workshop Then, a sumamry of the highlights in the past months was given - a new database was introduced to keep up with performance requirements - more powerful hardware was installed, and a scaling analysis will be done with it - currently there are 4 Remote Route Collectors (RRC) at RIPE NCC, LINX, AMS-IX, SFINX; anybody interested in peering to put data into RIS is welcome to contact Antony Antony - two more RRCs are planned, investigating where to place them - work has been done on the user interface, with output on: web, email - vanilla, strawberry, chocolate: which view of the routes do we have in the RIS? The flavors distinguish different amounts of routing info, ranging from filtered and restricted output (vanilla) to the full set of routes (chocolate); RIS prefers to see more - following several requests from different sources (ISMA project, Hermes, ASExplorer,...), the raw data is now available (announced yesterday), check out URL http://abcoude.ripe.net/ris/rawdata During the next months the RIS team plans to - move to production during 2001 - proceed with route collection and expand it - improve and extend the user interface - proceed with network research Henk stressed again that he very much welcomes welcomes input from the community on this project. Joachim reminded Henk of the action, the Routing WG has put on the RIS team, to also implement route flap statistics. Henk confirmed that this is on the list of topics to analyse. 2. Thomas Franchetti In the second part, Thomas presented some results from data collected by RIS - statistics of numbers of prefixes by length show a noticable increase of /24, and /32 - origin ASs announcing only one prefix - distribution of prefix lengths again shows the increase of /24, and /32 - statistics of how many ASs announce certain number of prefixes most ASs announce only very few prefixes, number of announcements per AS is on average decreasing The graphs shown will be made available on the web before RIPE39. Conclusion: - it is necessary to view larger periods to see trends more clearly. - there is a lot of data in RIS, and lots of potential ways to analyze it, but not easy to find ways of presentation; this definitely needs to be explored Joachim finds the parallels interesting between the RIS project results, and other analysis like the one by Philip Smith (distributed on the Routing WG mailing list), or the "standard" CIDR report by Tony Bates. Joachim is eager to see more results at RIPE39, and also welcomes any input from the community; after all these stats are just a glimpse at the wealth of data collected at RIS. 3. Antony Antony In the third part of the presentations on RIS, Antony presented some peculiar RIS observations: - regarding negligence in aggregation, it is amazing how big a number of more specifics is announced from small prefixes (up to several 1000s in a /8) - looking at AS path length, a path with 123 ASs was found, which is very peculiar; this causes several problems, e.g. Cisco actually resets because of missing buffer space; there is also a known Cisco bug where an empty AS path may appear, and thus care must be taken if filtering on AS path length - if AS numbers are considered as such, roughly 82% of RIPE NCC assigned AS numbers are visible by RIS, and the question arises: where are the others? Actually, the RIPE region is still in pretty good shape because the global average is 50%. Following up on this, Daniel Karrenberg added some observations and comments. He noted that the full feed they get from a neighbor consists of 81,272 prefixes, but the maximum number of prefixes from a peer is 100,461. In the beginning, the difference between the extremes was just a couple of thousands, but obviously has expanded tremendously. As Randy Bush has pointed out during the EOF session, it is possible to go down to around 80k prefixes without loosing connectivity. Possibly, people announce redundant data. RIS may be used to catch the source of those redundant data. Daniel was musing whether the NCC should suggest filter lists but would want more discussion on that. D. Routing Registry Consistency Checking (Shane Kerr, RIPE NCC) [ The presentation is available at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-38/presentations/rrcc-ripe38… dex.html ] Shane reports that the RIPE IRR currently holds around 24k route objects and 4k AS objects. The quality of the contents varies widely, because there are people who really update their objects, and others who don't. To improve data quality, the data in the IRR is compared to what is found on the Internet. However, the goal is not just reporting, but help to improve the IRR and make it more useful. This is the idea behind the Routing Registry Consistency Checking (R2C2). The following slides gave an overview of the approach, the status, progress, and the plans of the project. Besides route objects and AS objects (routing policies), there are also supporting objects like AS macros which form a set of data to be compared to RIS data. Several reports and tools are in the make, like - summary report - specific report - router configuration checker - IRR correction wizard The project has reached a status where comparisons are possible, and mismatches may be identified. Prototype interfaces and a prototype correction wizard are available. A web page for the project exists with a practical example of the prototype interface. The next steps include polishing and finishing current software, publishing a summary of the project as RIPE-201 document, and seeking community input. Potential possible directions include - a view from specific route collector on request - checking aut-num policy with AS paths - a router configuration verification Additional suggestions include working together with other IRRs and on request from the community develop further applications. This was the last topic in the Routing WG session itself. The second slot was dedicated to a joint session of the Routing and Database WGs dealing with RPSL transition issues. Y. Input from other WGs There was no input from other WGs. Z. AOB There was no other business. Summary of Open Action Points from the Routing WG 36.R1 on RIPE NCC During the transition phase to the RPSL software - verify with RADB on their test suites for RPSL implementations - coordinate with RADB on consistent mirroring of databases (NRTM) - coordinate with RADB on consistent whois interface of databases including irrd status: ongoing 37.R1 on C.Panigl, P.Smith, D.Karrenberg, J.Schmitz Provide updates to RIPE-210 - general editing, review - explanation of damping parameters - examples by implementation - script to determine TLD/root nameservers for "golden network" list status: ongoing 37.R2 on RIS team, Henk Uijterwaal Implement route flap analysis from RIS data status: ongoing Engin Gunduz, Joachim Schmitz, February 2001

1 0

Re: The Cidr Report
by SchmitzJo＠aol.com 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

Dear Tony, you wrote: > [...] > 2) It seems folks don't use it as much as they can as I see very little > positive changes anymore. > > However, having said this I would like to understand from folks (reply > directly) if you think I should continue to generate this. > [...] > However, it is > worth having a quick look for config errors and would encourage providers > to do this periodically. > Well, I do include the mailing lists on purpose in my answer... I very much support that you continue to generate the CIDR reports, and distribute them. The reasons are manifold, and go far beyond sentimental feelings about one of the institutional reports on the Internet. Why did we start this in the first place? To put up a flag against exponential routing table growth. And it worked - growth was down to roughly linear for quite some time. However, newer analysis e.g. by Philip Smith or recently by the new RIS project at the RIPE NCC shows that the Internet has again embarked on exponential growth of the routing table (e.g. I still doubt that several *thousand* longer prefixes announced from one /8 make a lot of sense, or the tremendous increase of longer prefixes than /24). Today, the worries are most likely not that much CPU and memory problems of the routers any more, but convergence and stability of BGP tables. Craig Labovitz, Abha Ahuja, et al. show results from their work which are not exactly reassuring... Anybody may improve the situation e.g. by proper filtering (very efficient as proven e.g. by Randy Bush), or correct route flap damping (yes, RIPE-210 needs a brush up badly - it is on our action list). As important as this is: it only helps on symptoms generated by others on the Internet: too many unnecessary routes. I am convinced that it is ever more important today to have a close look at the status of the Internet routing table, and where it may be improved - and your CIDR report is one keystone in it. Thanks a lot for generating these reports during the past years, and please continue to generate them. A review of the prerequisites as you outlined in the first part of your mail does not change anything in the basic statement of the report. Thanks Joachim (chairman RIPE Routing WG) --- JS395-RIPE -- standard disclaimer ---

1 0

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 12 Feb '01

12 Feb '01

This is an auto-generated mail on Sun Feb 11 20:37:22 PST 2001 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amont of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 11Feb01 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 040201 96815 050201 96681 060201 96726 070201 96978 080201 97041 090201 97137 100201 96880 110201 96509 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- *** Bogus 91.16.23.0/24 from AS11770 *** Bogus 103.22.7.0/24 from AS9768 AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 9849 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 5760 (3266 cidr, 2494 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 957 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 1642 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 11Feb01 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS1221 1623 1207 416 25.6% Telstra Pty Ltd AS701 1642 1451 191 11.6% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS271 280 132 148 52.9% University of British Columbia AS7545 196 71 125 63.8% ASNBLK-APNIC-AS-2-BLOCK AS9269 162 46 116 71.6% ASNBLK-APNIC-AS-3-BLOCK AS6429 221 108 113 51.1% RdC Internet AS6595 163 62 101 62.0% DoD Education Activity Network As AS8013 434 336 98 22.6% PSINet Ltd. Canada AS13999 107 10 97 90.7% Mega Cable S.A. de C.V. AS4293 374 281 93 24.9% Cable & Wireless USA AS7496 104 23 81 77.9% ASNBLK-APNIC-AS-2-BLOCK AS4151 250 169 81 32.4% USDA AS705 312 234 78 25.0% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS4755 209 137 72 34.4% Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Autonom AS1942 137 65 72 52.6% FR-CICG-GRENOBLE AS7018 615 544 71 11.5% AT&T AS7046 325 255 70 21.5% UUNET Technologies, Inc. AS577 236 167 69 29.2% Bell Advanced Communications Inc. AS174 499 431 68 13.6% PSINet Inc. AS1727 162 94 68 42.0% Commander Naval Surface force US AS9498 88 21 67 76.1% BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. AS724 219 152 67 30.6% DLA Systems Automation Center AS5106 101 37 64 63.4% Ameritech Advanced Data Services, AS3464 153 92 61 39.9% Alabama SuperComputer Network AS7657 185 125 60 32.4% ASNBLK-APNIC-AS-2-BLOCK AS226 155 95 60 38.7% Los Nettos AS3749 115 57 58 50.4% Tennessee Board of Regents AS16758 63 6 57 90.5% IKON Office Solutions AS6413 67 11 56 83.6% Southern Online Systems, Inc. AS376 131 75 56 42.7% Reseau Interordinateurs Scientiqu For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 1

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 09 Feb '01

09 Feb '01

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Feb 9 12:00:00 PST 2001 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amont of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 09Feb01 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 020201 96787 030201 96701 040201 96815 050201 96681 060201 96726 070201 96978 080201 97041 090201 97137 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- *** Bogus 91.16.23.0/24 from AS11770 *** Bogus 103.22.7.0/24 from AS9768 AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 9841 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 5753 (3257 cidr, 2496 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 954 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 1649 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 09Feb01 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0

Weekly Routing Table Report
by Routing Analysis 08 Feb '01

08 Feb '01

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net For a graphical representation, please see http://www.apnic.net/stats/bgp. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfs(a)cisco.com>. Routing Table Report 09 Feb, 2001 Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 100689 Origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 9892 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 3524 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1324 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 5.3 Max AS path length visible: 18 Illegal AS announcements present in the Routing Table: 15 Non-routable prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from the IANA Reserved Address blocks: 4 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 1207529448 Equivalent to 71 /8s, 249 /16s and 111 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 32.6 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 63.9 Percentage of available address space allocated: 51.0 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 15740 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 14063 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1147 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 413 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 190 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 5.0 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 13 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 69686953 Equivalent to 4 /8s, 39 /16s and 86 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 68.5 APNIC AS Blocks 4608 - 4864, 7467 - 7722, 9216 - 10239, 17408 - 18431 APNIC Address Blocks 61/8, 202/7, 210/7 and 218/8 ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 69573 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 47249 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 6028 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1756 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 632 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 5.2 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 14 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 176439809 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 132 /16s and 66 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 80.9 ARIN AS Blocks 1 - 1876, 1902 - 2042, 2044 - 2046, 2048 - 2106 2138 - 2584, 2615 - 2772, 2823 - 2829, 2880 - 3153 3354 - 4607, 4865 - 5119, 5632 - 6655, 6912 - 7466 7723 - 8191, 10240 - 12287, 13312 - 15359 16384 - 17407, 18432 - 20479 ARIN Address Blocks 63/8, 64/7, 66/8, 199/8, 200/8, 204/6, 208/7 and 216/8 RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 15361 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 12117 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2715 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1353 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 501 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.9 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 18 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 89815660 Equivalent to 5 /8s, 90 /16s and 122 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 76.5 RIPE AS Blocks 1877 - 1901, 2042, 2047, 2107 - 2136, 2585 - 2614 2773 - 2822, 2830 - 2879, 3154 - 3353, 5377 - 5631 6656 - 6911, 8192 - 9215, 12288 - 13311, 15360 - 16383 RIPE Address Blocks 62/8, 193/8, 194/7, 212/7 and 217/8 APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /19 equiv Description 1221 2446 1198 Telstra 2764 438 140 connect.com.au pty ltd 703 367 248 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 2907 366 892 SINET Japan 4755 311 112 VSNL India 4740 257 16 Ozemail 7657 215 12 The Internet Group Limited 9269 209 24 Hong Kong CTI 4618 207 56 Internet Thailand 7545 205 7 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 4538 199 972 China Education and Research 4763 190 43 Telstra New Zealand 7474 189 87 Optus Communications 4766 171 619 KORnet Powered BY Korea Telec 4134 169 523 Data Communications Bureau 3462 136 205 Data Communications Institute 7586 135 10 Paradox Digital Pty. Ltd 7539 129 83 Delegated to TWNIC for subseq 4786 128 7 NetConnect Communications Pty 7496 124 9 Power Up RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /19 equiv Description 3301 391 314 TeliaNet Sweden 702 380 588 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 1257 320 240 Swipnet AB 1270 270 433 UUNET Germany 3215 207 182 RAIN 680 194 856 Deutschef Forschurgsnetz 719 191 146 LANLINK 786 184 960 JANET IP Service 5515 172 326 Sonera Finland 3320 167 462 Deutsche Telekom AG 1849 152 271 UUNET UK (formerly PIPEX) 1942 140 53 GIP Renater 2856 140 394 BTnet UK Regional network 517 134 137 Xlink 3303 128 277 Swisscom 5400 109 31 Concert Internet Plus Europea 1901 104 77 EUnet Austria 1267 98 986 IUnet S.p.A 2830 85 30 UUNET UK (formerly PIPEX) 3269 85 267 TELECOM ITALIA ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /19 equiv Description 701 2640 3588 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 1 996 4572 BBN Planet 7018 911 3020 AT&T 7046 735 551 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 1239 697 1580 Sprint ICM-Inria 705 635 39 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 2914 611 1272 Verio, Inc. 174 594 2794 PSINet Inc. 3561 569 1307 Cable & Wireless USA 3549 537 442 Frontier GlobalCenter 8013 521 68 PSINet Ltd. Canada 2551 502 345 NETCOM On-Line Communication 4293 473 58 Cable & Wireless USA 209 438 650 Qwest 2548 398 523 Digital Express Group, Inc. 3908 392 280 Supernet, Inc. 6082 358 63 Management Analysis, Incorpor 8151 358 192 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 271 349 269 BCnet Backbone 11371 324 49 Rhythms NetConnections Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /19 equiv Description 701 2640 3588 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 1221 2446 1198 Telstra 1 996 4572 BBN Planet 7018 911 3020 AT&T 7046 735 551 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 1239 697 1580 Sprint ICM-Inria 705 635 39 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 2914 611 1272 Verio, Inc. 174 594 2794 PSINet Inc. 3561 569 1307 Cable & Wireless USA 3549 537 442 Frontier GlobalCenter 8013 521 68 PSINet Ltd. Canada 2551 502 345 NETCOM On-Line Communication 4293 473 58 Cable & Wireless USA 209 438 650 Qwest 2764 438 140 connect.com.au pty ltd 2548 398 523 Digital Express Group, Inc. 3908 392 280 Supernet, Inc. 3301 391 314 TeliaNet Sweden 702 380 588 UUNET Technologies, Inc. List of Unregistered ASNs (Global) ---------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 2027 UNALLOCATED 150.185.0.0/16 10530 Interpacket Group, I 2027 UNALLOCATED 150.185.128.0/18 8143 Publicom Corp. 2027 UNALLOCATED 150.186.0.0/16 10530 Interpacket Group, I 2027 UNALLOCATED 150.187.0.0/16 10530 Interpacket Group, I 2027 UNALLOCATED 150.188.0.0/16 10530 Interpacket Group, I 2027 UNALLOCATED 150.189.0.0/16 10530 Interpacket Group, I 61512 RESERVED 170.224.16.0/20 17232 Enhanced Network Ser 1877 UNALLOCATED 192.108.196.0/24 1800 SPRINT 1877 UNALLOCATED 192.108.209.0/24 1880 Stupi, house man's 1877 UNALLOCATED 192.108.210.0/24 1880 Stupi, house man's 1877 UNALLOCATED 192.108.214.0/24 1800 SPRINT 5757 UNALLOCATED 192.239.13.0/24 701 UUNET Technologies, 17411 UNALLOCATED 202.137.32.0/21 703 UUNET Technologies, 65500 PRIVATE 203.166.86.0/24 10084 Western Australian I 5757 UNALLOCATED 207.19.224.0/24 701 UUNET Technologies, Advertised IANA Reserved Addresses ---------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 39.96.40.224/30 14408 iCAIR 50.198.0.0/16 2548 Digital Express Group, Inc. 91.16.23.0/24 11770 Net56 103.22.7.0/24 9768 PubNet (Korea Telecom) Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:21 /9:4 /10:5 /11:10 /12:32 /13:61 /14:195 /15:307 /16:6859 /17:1040 /18:2041 /19:6339 /20:4637 /21:4310 /22:6515 /23:8469 /24:58457 /25:277 /26:349 /27:132 /28:101 /29:105 /30:291 /31:0 /32:132 Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 9:3 12:310 13:10 15:1 24:648 26:1 32:6 38:9 44:3 53:2 55:1 57:9 61:41 62:112 63:1677 64:1263 65:54 66:112 91:1 103:1 128:33 129:233 130:20 131:31 132:10 133:4 134:104 135:8 136:121 137:145 138:192 139:53 140:110 141:43 142:56 143:38 144:188 145:7 146:133 147:54 148:119 149:116 150:24 151:330 152:969 153:35 154:76 155:71 156:15 157:106 158:56 159:60 160:16 161:57 162:60 163:130 164:108 165:102 166:174 167:83 168:74 169:30 170:203 171:2 192:5413 193:1819 194:1996 195:773 196:394 198:3758 199:3459 200:1821 202:2427 203:5259 204:3552 205:2455 206:2799 207:2948 208:2925 209:3374 210:387 211:135 212:800 213:297 214:9 215:11 216:2678 217:105 End of report

1 0

Migration issues: route creation
by Andrei Robachevsky 05 Feb '01

05 Feb '01

Dear Colleagues, You may know that the new version of the RIPE database (v3.0) also supports Routing Policy Security System (RFC2725). One of the implications is that this may prevent registrations of "foreign" routes in the RIPE IRR (that is routes from non RIPE address space and/or non RIPE ASN). According to RFC2725, creation of a route object should be authorized by the "owner" of the respective address space or aggregate route and by the "owner" of the ASN that is specified as route origin. In case of absence of the corresponding objects, creation of the route object will fail. The creation of the corresponding "foreign" objects will not be as easy in the new version as it is in the current one. The ASN space will be protected by as-block object, and IP address space by corresponding top level inetnum object. This makes registration of "foreign" routes almost impossible, which affects current practice when an IPS requests that clients' routes should be registered in the RIPE IRR. Possible solutions to this problem are: 1. Send such registration requests to the Database Administration (ripe-dbm) who will perform registration by overriding security (and performing necessary checks before). This puts additional load on ripe-dbm and creates duplicate objects in the RIPE database and "foreign" IRR. 2. Do not allow such registrations. In this case some ISPs will need to change their peering policy and accept routing information from a "foreign" IRR. Your comments and suggestions are highly appreciated. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky DB Group Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

The Cidr Report
by Tony Bates 02 Feb '01

02 Feb '01

This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Feb 2 12:00:00 PST 2001 It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you perform. The report is split into sections: 0) General Status List the route table history for the last week, list any possibly bogus routes seen and give some status on ASes. 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level This lists the "Top 30" players who if they decided to aggregate their announced classful prefixes at the origin AS level could make a significant difference in the reduction of the current size of the Internet routing table. This calculation does not take into account the inclusion of holes when forming an aggregate so it is possible even larger reduction should be possible. 2) Weekly Delta A summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does give some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. Clearly, it is generally a good thing to see a large amont of withdrawls. 3) Interesting aggregates Interesting here means not an aggregate made as a set of classful routes. Thanks to xara.net for giving me access to their routing tables once a day. Please send any comments about this report directly to me. Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html for a daily update of this report. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CIDR REPORT for 02Feb01 0) General Status Table History ------------- Date Prefixes 260101 96902 270101 96353 280101 96304 290101 96277 300101 96520 310101 96571 010201 96527 020201 96787 Check http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr.plot.html for a plot of the table history. Possible Bogus Routes --------------------- *** Bogus 91.16.23.0/24 from AS11770 AS Summary ---------- Number of ASes in routing system: 9790 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix: 5718 (3222 cidr, 2496 classful) Largest number of cidr routes: 957 announced by AS701 Largest number of classful routes: 1658 announced by AS701 1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level --- 02Feb01 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description For the rest of the previous weeks gain information please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html 2) Weekly Delta Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report 3) Interesting aggregates Please see http://www.employees.org:80/~tbates/cidr-report.html for this part of the report

1 0

Weekly Routing Table Report
by Routing Analysis 01 Feb '01

01 Feb '01

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net For a graphical representation, please see http://www.apnic.net/stats/bgp. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfs(a)cisco.com>. Routing Table Report 02 Feb, 2001 Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 100908 Origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 9827 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 3489 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1316 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 5.3 Max AS path length visible: 18 Illegal AS announcements present in the Routing Table: 17 Non-routable prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from the IANA Reserved Address blocks: 2 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 1202892915 Equivalent to 71 /8s, 178 /16s and 176 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 32.5 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 63.6 Percentage of available address space allocated: 51.0 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 15560 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 13998 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1142 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 406 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 187 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 5.0 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 12 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 65649152 Equivalent to 3 /8s, 233 /16s and 186 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 64.5 APNIC AS Blocks 4608 - 4864, 7467 - 7722, 9216 - 10239, 17408 - 18431 APNIC Address Blocks 61/8, 202/7, 210/7 and 218/8 ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 69861 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 47377 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 5985 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1732 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 628 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 5.2 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 13 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 175815311 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 122 /16s and 186 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 80.6 ARIN AS Blocks 1 - 1876, 1902 - 2042, 2044 - 2046, 2048 - 2106 2138 - 2584, 2615 - 2772, 2823 - 2829, 2880 - 3153 3354 - 4607, 4865 - 5119, 5632 - 6655, 6912 - 7466 7723 - 8191, 10240 - 12287, 13312 - 15359 16384 - 17407, 18432 - 20479 ARIN Address Blocks 63/8, 64/7, 66/8, 199/8, 200/8, 204/6, 208/7 and 216/8 RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 15470 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 12207 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2698 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1349 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 499 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.9 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 18 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 89469667 Equivalent to 5 /8s, 85 /16s and 50 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 76.2 RIPE AS Blocks 1877 - 1901, 2042, 2047, 2107 - 2136, 2585 - 2614 2773 - 2822, 2830 - 2879, 3154 - 3353, 5377 - 5631 6656 - 6911, 8192 - 9215, 12288 - 13311, 15360 - 16383 RIPE Address Blocks 62/8, 193/8, 194/7, 212/7 and 217/8 APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /19 equiv Description 1221 2384 1189 Telstra 2764 436 139 connect.com.au pty ltd 703 416 250 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 2907 366 892 SINET Japan 4755 312 110 VSNL India 7657 217 12 The Internet Group Limited 9269 209 24 Hong Kong CTI 4618 207 56 Internet Thailand 4740 207 13 Ozemail 7545 205 7 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 7474 191 90 Optus Communications 4763 190 43 Telstra New Zealand 4766 175 619 KORnet Powered BY Korea Telec 4134 169 523 Data Communications Bureau 7586 135 10 Paradox Digital Pty. Ltd 3462 131 181 Data Communications Institute 4786 129 7 NetConnect Communications Pty 7496 124 9 Power Up 7617 122 46 One.Net Pty Ltd 9797 122 10 Asia Online Australia RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /19 equiv Description 3301 392 306 TeliaNet Sweden 702 367 490 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 1270 333 432 UUNET Germany 1257 314 240 Swipnet AB 3215 204 180 RAIN 719 193 146 LANLINK 5515 193 359 Sonera Finland 680 188 864 Deutschef Forschurgsnetz 786 184 960 JANET IP Service 3320 166 462 Deutsche Telekom AG 1849 162 280 UUNET UK (formerly PIPEX) 1942 140 53 GIP Renater 2856 138 394 BTnet UK Regional network 517 134 137 Xlink 3303 128 277 Swisscom 5400 110 32 Concert Internet Plus Europea 1901 103 77 EUnet Austria 1267 98 986 IUnet S.p.A 3259 95 88 UUNET FRANCE 2830 83 30 UUNET UK (formerly PIPEX) ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /19 equiv Description 701 2608 3599 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 1 1009 4612 BBN Planet 7018 913 3017 AT&T 7046 730 542 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 1239 695 1589 Sprint ICM-Inria 2914 614 1289 Verio, Inc. 174 597 2806 PSINet Inc. 705 597 37 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 3561 565 1306 Cable & Wireless USA 2548 543 523 Digital Express Group, Inc. 3549 537 441 Frontier GlobalCenter 8013 523 64 PSINet Ltd. Canada 2551 504 345 NETCOM On-Line Communication 4293 449 57 Cable & Wireless USA 209 433 633 Qwest 271 424 271 BCnet Backbone 3908 386 280 Supernet, Inc. 6082 359 63 Management Analysis, Incorpor 8151 357 192 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 11371 324 49 Rhythms NetConnections Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /19 equiv Description 701 2608 3599 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 1221 2384 1189 Telstra 1 1009 4612 BBN Planet 7018 913 3017 AT&T 7046 730 542 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 1239 695 1589 Sprint ICM-Inria 2914 614 1289 Verio, Inc. 174 597 2806 PSINet Inc. 705 597 37 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 3561 565 1306 Cable & Wireless USA 2548 543 523 Digital Express Group, Inc. 3549 537 441 Frontier GlobalCenter 8013 523 64 PSINet Ltd. Canada 2551 504 345 NETCOM On-Line Communication 4293 449 57 Cable & Wireless USA 2764 436 139 connect.com.au pty ltd 209 433 633 Qwest 271 424 271 BCnet Backbone 703 416 250 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 3301 392 306 TeliaNet Sweden List of Unregistered ASNs (Global) ---------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 65535 PRIVATE 63.140.210.0/23 5696 WINSTAR 65535 PRIVATE 63.140.240.0/24 5696 WINSTAR 65535 PRIVATE 63.140.241.0/24 5696 WINSTAR 2027 UNALLOCATED 150.185.0.0/16 10530 Interpacket Group, I 2027 UNALLOCATED 150.185.128.0/18 8143 Publicom Corp. 2027 UNALLOCATED 150.186.0.0/16 10530 Interpacket Group, I 2027 UNALLOCATED 150.187.0.0/16 10530 Interpacket Group, I 2027 UNALLOCATED 150.188.0.0/16 10530 Interpacket Group, I 2027 UNALLOCATED 150.189.0.0/16 10530 Interpacket Group, I 1877 UNALLOCATED 192.108.196.0/24 1800 SPRINT 1877 UNALLOCATED 192.108.209.0/24 1880 Stupi, house man's 1877 UNALLOCATED 192.108.210.0/24 1880 Stupi, house man's 1877 UNALLOCATED 192.108.214.0/24 1800 SPRINT 5757 UNALLOCATED 192.239.13.0/24 701 UUNET Technologies, 17411 UNALLOCATED 202.137.32.0/21 703 UUNET Technologies, 65500 PRIVATE 203.166.86.0/24 10084 Western Australian I 5757 UNALLOCATED 207.19.224.0/24 701 UUNET Technologies, Advertised IANA Reserved Addresses ---------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 39.96.40.224/30 14408 iCAIR 91.16.23.0/24 11770 Net56 Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:21 /9:4 /10:5 /11:10 /12:32 /13:61 /14:196 /15:306 /16:6807 /17:1025 /18:2025 /19:6319 /20:4543 /21:4291 /22:6497 /23:8428 /24:58495 /25:297 /26:399 /27:230 /28:220 /29:154 /30:321 /31:1 /32:221 Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 9:3 12:302 15:1 24:625 26:1 32:6 38:9 44:2 53:2 55:1 57:9 61:60 62:126 63:1637 64:1200 65:43 66:111 91:1 128:33 129:231 130:20 131:31 132:9 133:4 134:104 135:8 136:123 137:144 138:189 139:51 140:102 141:138 142:58 143:38 144:126 145:11 146:132 147:90 148:120 149:115 150:23 151:331 152:959 153:62 154:76 155:71 156:15 157:108 158:56 159:56 160:18 161:57 162:61 163:125 164:105 165:101 166:174 167:82 168:69 169:30 170:207 171:2 192:5419 193:1822 194:2013 195:756 196:394 198:3749 199:3419 200:1810 202:2448 203:5211 204:3572 205:2461 206:2817 207:2997 208:2881 209:3419 210:382 211:136 212:817 213:305 214:8 215:11 216:2747 217:97 End of report

1 0