Re: The Cidr Report

["Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Randy Bush wrote:

> > ASnum    NetsNow NetsAggr  NetGain   % Gain   Description
> >
> > AS18566      751        6      745    99.2%   CVAD Covad Communications
> > AS4134       825      178      647    78.4%   CHINANET-BACKBONE
> >                                                No.31,Jin-rong Street
> > AS4323       794      223      571    71.9%   TWTC Time Warner Telecom
> > AS6197       814      430      384    47.2%   BNS-14 BellSouth Network
> >                                                Solutions, Inc
> > AS22773      401       17      384    95.8%   CXA Cox Communications Inc.
> > AS27364      413       45      368    89.1%   ARMC Armstrong Cable Services
> > AS701       1230      884      346    28.1%   UU UUNET Technologies, Inc.
> > AS22909      412       81      331    80.3%   CMCS Comcast Cable
> >                                                Communications, Inc.
>
> are these numbers what i think, but hope not, they are?
>
> e.g. is AS18566 the origin AS for 751 prefixes that could be
> collapsed to 6?
>
> if not, then perhaps the report could use some work.
>
> if so, then
>   o why are providers indulging is such extremely sick
>     behavior

not to justify the expense, but perhaps covad is renumbering from one
block to another? Looking at their advertisments I see lots of /23 or /24
blocks inside their larger covering routes... So either they deaggregated
to renumber more gracefully, or they forgot their prefix-list outbound to
williams and exodus ?

perhaps covad can explain? or silently cover up the 'mistake' (which is
acceptable as well...)