On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 06:41:16PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 03:03:49PM +0100, Edward Shryane wrote:
I checked all route objects in the RIPE database, against the delegated stats file for each region, and found which region the (IPv4) address space belongs in.
RIPE: 185,537 ARIN: 7,609 AFRINIC: 37,683 LACNIC: 1,930 APNIC: 2,004
Edward was kind enough to provide me with data dumps. I've run some simple seek & count code, comparing the route objects (and their real source) and the BGP table: Correct route object, prefix-length, origin which are visible in BGP DFZ: IPv6 IPv4 AFRINIC: 72 7146 APNIC: 17 498 ARIN: 264 4030 LACNIC: 11 1448 OTHER: 2 NaN RIPE: 6430 106081 Registered route objects which are NOT visible in BGP DFZ: IPv6 IPv4 AFRINIC: 95 31018 APNIC: 9 515 ARIN: 168 2694 LACNIC: 15 448 OTHER: 0 NaN RIPE: 3038 78393 Correct route object prefix length, wrong origin & visible in BGP DFZ: IPv6 IPv4 AFRINIC: 7 582 APNIC: 3 1002 ARIN: 84 1085 LACNIC: 0 35 OTHER: 45 NaN RIPE: 357 10896 OK, so what does this mean?! If we proceed with our plan to set 'source: RIPE-NONAUTH' for objects, the prefixes from the first category (correct length & origin & visible) might be impacted. Roughly 13k prefixes, of which ARIN & AFRINIC are the largest. The real number might be lower as it is quite possible that route objects for those 13k prefixes exist in other registries as well. Curiously enough running those 13122 prefixes through aggregate(1), the set is shrunken down to only 3941 prefixes. So, what's next? Please share your thoughts & insights. Kind regards, Jobi ps. My data and crude scripts are available here: http://instituut.net/~job/correlate-route-objects-with-bgp-ripe/