RE: The Cidr Report

["McBurnett, Jim" <jmcburnett () msmgmt com>]

> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> > Stephen J. Wilcox writes on 11/14/2003 7:16 AM:
> >
> > > So anyway, was discussing the cidr report at the last 
> nanog.. I was pointing out 
> > > that deaggregation is discouraged by the naming and 
> shaming and then someone 
> > > else pointed out that this list has scarcely altered in months.
> > >
> > > So, what can we do as the operator community if this 
> report isnt having the 
> > > desired effect? 
> >
> > Stop accepting /24 type routes?
Please no... That will drop me off the map..
> Yeah maybe but what about where the RIRs have assigned 
> independent /24 space..  
> or ISPs have subdelegated the IPs to a multihomed customer, 
> was more thinking
> about where a bunch of routes originating from a single ASN 
> can be aggregated 
> rather than routing bloat in general. There are numerous such 
> examples of people 
> with eg a /19 announcing 32x /24 etc
>
> Steve


I don't have the stats handy at the moment, but we decided to Multi-home
I researched several issues with /24 blocks. One thing that seemed to stick
out was that some providers were using /20 and /21 as "multi-home" blocks.
They were reserving that block just for /24 multi-homing.. and I also remember
that of the /24 being annouced independently, a majority of them were not
multihomed.......

just how bad is the auto-summarization at the upstream for the route propagation
via BGP in the large routers anyway?

Jim