nanog mailing list archives
Re: ratios
From: Stephen Griffin <stephen.griffin () rcn com>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 15:58:00 -0400 (EDT)
In the referenced message, Dean S Moran said:
Plus, wtf is this clause about announcing 5000 routes? What a crock of s**t! This really encourages aggregation, doesn't it?
It would be more responsible if they had a minimum number of "fully aggregated (by origin-as) routes" This would, hopefully, prevent folks from merely deaggregating to meet the number. Hopefully, that number would be significantly less than 5000. Some time back, I look a look at all routes with origin as701, and came up with: 2165 total routes 1846 routes after removing more-specifics (not even going the extra step to aggregate what was left) 319 pointless more-specifics (same origin, so no additional path information) 14% of routes originated by as701 are entirely chaff I emailed uunet, asking why it was they were leaking all these wasted routes at me, but didn't get a response. I took a look at 3561 based upon that same snapshot and see: 342 total routes originated by 3561 324 routes after removing more-specifics (not even going the extra step to aggregate what was left) 18 pointless more-specifics (same origin, so no additional path information) 5% of routes originated by as3561 are entirely chaff so, as3561 appears to be less sloppy, but if their policy is worded "minimum of X routes", it definately encourages sloppiness.
Current thread:
- Re: ratios, (continued)
- Re: ratios Richard Irving (May 08)
- Re: ratios Stephen J. Wilcox (May 08)
- Re: ratios Ralph Doncaster (May 09)
- RE: ratios Daniel Golding (May 09)
- RE: ratios Scott Granados (May 09)
- Re: ratios Richard A Steenbergen (May 09)
- RE: ratios william (May 09)
- Re: ratios Richard A Steenbergen (May 09)
- RE: ratios Steve Meuse (May 09)
- RE: ratios Chris Parker (May 09)
- RE: ratios Stephen J. Wilcox (May 09)
- Re: ratios Michael Painter (May 10)
- Re: ratios Stephen J. Wilcox (May 10)