This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Jul 15 18:10:01 MET DST 1994 This is a list of the "Top 10" players who if CIDRizing at the AS level could make a significant gain in the size of Internet routing tables. This may be an over-estimation but it is hoped that this can act as an incentive for the "Top 10" and others to look at their CIDR capability. A full summary of all the ASes seen in the Internet can be seen by looking in: ftp.ripe.net:cidr/stats/AS* As stated above this is auto-generated so it is not checked before it leaves my workstation. Please also find a summary of the last weeks changes in terms of withdrawn and added routes. Please note that this is only a snapshot but does some indication of ASes participating in CIDR. More information can be found in: ftp.ripe.net:cidr/stats/Delta.* Top 10 Withdrawn Routes from 08Jul94 to 15Jul94 -155 AS204 PSCNET-AS -36 AS2895 FREEnet -30 AS568 SUMNET-AS -29 AS1250 SINGAPORE-AS -26 AS1270 EUnet/DE -22 AS555 MSCNET-AS -19 AS1257 SWIPnet Swedish IP Network -15 AS2119 TelePost IP net -12 AS1901 EUnet Austria -9 AS1660 ANS-BLK1 Top 10 Added Routes from 08Jul94 to 15Jul94 108 AS1206 PSCNET-HS-AS 44 AS237 NSFNETTEST14-AS 40 AS1239 SprintLink 30 AS19 CSS-DOMAIN 22 AS668 ASN-ASNET-NET-AS 17 AS209 WESTNET-EAST 15 AS701 AlterNet 14 AS3609 CYBER-NET 12 AS174 NYSERNET-AS 11 AS1717 RENATER Here follows the last weeks "Top 10" list with the corresponding date. --- 15Jul94 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS701 1022 577 445 43.5% AlterNet AS174 1266 894 372 29.4% NYSERNET-AS AS372 1157 831 326 28.2% NSN-AMES-AS AS1270 444 222 222 50.0% EUnet/DE AS19 694 528 166 23.9% CSS-DOMAIN AS560 576 413 163 28.3% NEARNET-EXT-AS AS1849 357 225 132 37.0% PIPEX, Public IP EXchange AS271 237 106 131 55.3% BCNET-AS AS1275 308 198 110 35.7% DFN-IP AS279 406 303 103 25.4% SURANET-AS-2 --- 14Jul94 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS701 1022 579 443 43.3% AlterNet AS174 1277 892 385 30.1% NYSERNET-AS AS372 1147 825 322 28.1% NSN-AMES-AS AS1270 468 232 236 50.4% EUnet/DE AS19 695 529 166 23.9% CSS-DOMAIN AS560 562 403 159 28.3% NEARNET-EXT-AS AS271 239 107 132 55.2% BCNET-AS AS1849 356 225 131 36.8% PIPEX, Public IP EXchange AS1275 308 198 110 35.7% DFN-IP AS279 404 301 103 25.5% SURANET-AS-2 --- 13Jul94 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS701 1017 580 437 43.0% AlterNet AS174 1262 887 375 29.7% NYSERNET-AS AS372 1138 823 315 27.7% NSN-AMES-AS AS1270 469 233 236 50.3% EUnet/DE AS560 583 416 167 28.6% NEARNET-EXT-AS AS19 696 531 165 23.7% CSS-DOMAIN AS1250 223 87 136 61.0% SINGAPORE-AS AS271 239 107 132 55.2% BCNET-AS AS1849 356 225 131 36.8% PIPEX, Public IP EXchange AS1275 311 199 112 36.0% DFN-IP --- 12Jul94 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS701 1018 578 440 43.2% AlterNet AS174 1263 893 370 29.3% NYSERNET-AS AS372 1151 827 324 28.1% NSN-AMES-AS AS1270 469 233 236 50.3% EUnet/DE AS560 580 414 166 28.6% NEARNET-EXT-AS AS19 690 525 165 23.9% CSS-DOMAIN AS271 239 107 132 55.2% BCNET-AS AS1849 351 220 131 37.3% PIPEX, Public IP EXchange AS1250 222 94 128 57.7% SINGAPORE-AS AS1275 309 197 112 36.2% DFN-IP --- 11Jul94 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS701 1018 577 441 43.3% AlterNet AS174 1237 880 357 28.9% NYSERNET-AS AS372 1141 826 315 27.6% NSN-AMES-AS AS1270 469 233 236 50.3% EUnet/DE AS19 672 511 161 24.0% CSS-DOMAIN AS560 567 411 156 27.5% NEARNET-EXT-AS AS271 241 108 133 55.2% BCNET-AS AS1849 351 220 131 37.3% PIPEX, Public IP EXchange AS1275 314 201 113 36.0% DFN-IP AS1250 183 87 96 52.5% SINGAPORE-AS --- 10Jul94 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS701 974 560 414 42.5% AlterNet AS174 1245 889 356 28.6% NYSERNET-AS AS372 1125 821 304 27.0% NSN-AMES-AS AS1270 469 233 236 50.3% EUnet/DE AS19 680 515 165 24.3% CSS-DOMAIN AS560 568 411 157 27.6% NEARNET-EXT-AS AS271 241 108 133 55.2% BCNET-AS AS1849 351 220 131 37.3% PIPEX, Public IP EXchange AS1250 211 84 127 60.2% SINGAPORE-AS AS1275 314 201 113 36.0% DFN-IP --- 09Jul94 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS701 1019 578 441 43.3% AlterNet AS174 1262 891 371 29.4% NYSERNET-AS AS372 1119 811 308 27.5% NSN-AMES-AS AS1270 469 233 236 50.3% EUnet/DE AS19 687 524 163 23.7% CSS-DOMAIN AS560 570 412 158 27.7% NEARNET-EXT-AS AS271 241 108 133 55.2% BCNET-AS AS1849 349 219 130 37.2% PIPEX, Public IP EXchange AS1250 207 82 125 60.4% SINGAPORE-AS AS279 403 304 99 24.6% SURANET-AS-2 --- 08Jul94 --- ASnum NetsNow NetsCIDR NetGain % Gain Description AS701 1007 575 432 42.9% AlterNet AS174 1254 893 361 28.8% NYSERNET-AS AS372 1156 836 320 27.7% NSN-AMES-AS AS1270 470 234 236 50.2% EUnet/DE AS19 664 509 155 23.3% CSS-DOMAIN AS560 562 410 152 27.0% NEARNET-EXT-AS AS271 241 108 133 55.2% BCNET-AS AS1250 226 93 133 58.8% SINGAPORE-AS AS1849 347 217 130 37.5% PIPEX, Public IP EXchange AS1275 314 201 113 36.0% DFN-IP
Hi, as a casual reader of the reports Tony and Jessica automatically send out by the end of each week I feel that it is now pertinent to present a couple of points and invite some comments. While some people are contributing their share by continuing to withdraw routes by actively using CIDR, I cannot avoid observing the fact that some of the larger and more well-respected Internet service providers week after week remain on the list of the "Top 10" ASes which could contribute substantially to the reduction of the IP routing table size by more actively using CIDR. It is perhaps time to ask again why these service providers appear not to contribute their share to the common good? What activities (besides these weekly automated postings here) are ongoing to push and guide these service providers in the right direction? It seems clear that posting the "top 10" list although a useful thing in itself, is not enough to provide the necessary push. IMHO service providers on the list should feel a little more guilty than they apparently do right now. Comments? Regards, - Havard
Well, one has to be a little careful. It should be noted that the "Top 10" is just an estimation and does not take into account any of the factors (like AUP, etc) that constrain Alternet (as an example) from further aggregating. However, in saying this I agree with your general sentiments entirely. * What activities (besides these weekly automated postings here) are * ongoing to push and guide these service providers in the right * direction? * None as far as I know. The problem is it not easy unless each SP wants to put their network out in the open and tell all the world why they can or cannot CIDRise and once again I feel a little uneasy about this as there can be a lot more complexity than the estimations can factor in. * It seems clear that posting the "top 10" list although a useful thing * in itself, is not enough to provide the necessary push. IMHO service * providers on the list should feel a little more guilty than they * apparently do right now. * Yep probably but also it extends much further than the "Top 10" of course (even if these are the potential biggest gains). --Tony "just a monkey, not the organ grinder" B
Havard et al.-- As an adjunct to your comment, I would like to point out that several ASs/service providers continue to *add* nets which could be CIDRized (refer to any "Additions to the NSFNET policy-based routing database" messages sent by Steve Widmayer, Enke Chen, or myself to nwg@merit.edu; these are archived in the public FTP area on merit.edu under nwg-archive). Steve Richardson/Merit
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 14:33:57 +0200 From: Havard Eidnes <Havard.Eidnes@runit.sintef.no> To: bgpd@merit.edu CC: routing-wg@ripe.net
Hi,
as a casual reader of the reports Tony and Jessica automatically send out by the end of each week I feel that it is now pertinent to present a couple of points and invite some comments.
While some people are contributing their share by continuing to withdraw routes by actively using CIDR, I cannot avoid observing the fact that some of the larger and more well-respected Internet service providers week after week remain on the list of the "Top 10" ASes which could contribute substantially to the reduction of the IP routing table size by more actively using CIDR.
It is perhaps time to ask again why these service providers appear not to contribute their share to the common good?
What activities (besides these weekly automated postings here) are ongoing to push and guide these service providers in the right direction?
It seems clear that posting the "top 10" list although a useful thing in itself, is not enough to provide the necessary push. IMHO service providers on the list should feel a little more guilty than they apparently do right now.
Comments?
Regards,
- Havard
I doubt anybody in the top 10 list is deliberately not implementing CIDR simply because they don't care. As Tony pointed out, there are many reasons why some of the organizations are not CIDRizing their routes yet. Perhaps an update from these organizations would be helpful. I will give an update on the status of AS 19 (DISA's FIX East router). It appears on the top 10 list frequently: The plan to run BGP4 started in April 1994. The initial steps required hardware/software upgrades on the routers, and hardware upgrades took longer than expected. At this point, the necessary upgrades are almost done, and DISA should be ready to aggregate routes within a month. -Jane
participants (4)
-
Havard Eidnes -
Jane Hsiung Wojcik -
Steven J. Richardson -
Tony Bates