Tony Bates wrote:
This is a list of the "Top 50" players who if CIDRizing at the AS level could make a significant gain in the reduction of 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 50" and others to look at their CIDR capability. This is a revival of report that used to be posted in the early days of CIDR deployment (we even had a cidrd list and working group then).
This looks purely at the classful routes in the system and shows what gain if cidrizing at the AS-level could be made by forming an aggregate.
--Tony
P.S. Same caveat about AS name mappings not working quite right yet. P.P.S. Unless there are loud objections I plan to automate this again soon.
The above is an excellent idea. Perhaps if you could mail the output to nanog and ripe-list the peer pressure would help and in some cases inform LIRS/ISPs what they may unknowingly be doing wrong. RIPE did this earlier inthe year for the European registries and it worked. Is there an APNIC equivelant ? It would also be a good idea IMHO if the Global registries (APNIC RIPE INTERNIC)had email lists, alongthe lines of the ones RIPE runs, which it encouraged new 'customers' to join. This may be the nearest we get to a global isp email list. Regards Tony
Actually - as of this week I mailed it automatically to nanog@merit.edu, eof-list@ripe.net, apops@apnic.net However, for some reason I dont see the nanog message. not sure why. This is partly a test to see if I see this one. --Tony Tony Barber <tonyb@uunet.pipex.com> writes: * Tony Bates wrote: * > * > * >This is a list of the "Top 50" players who if CIDRizing at the AS level * >could make a significant gain in the reduction of 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 50" and others to look at * >their CIDR capability. This is a revival of report that used to be * >posted in the early days of CIDR deployment (we even had a cidrd list * >and working group then). * > * >This looks purely at the classful routes in the system and shows what gain * if * >cidrizing at the AS-level could be made by forming an aggregate. * > * > --Tony * > * >P.S. Same caveat about AS name mappings not working quite right yet. * >P.P.S. Unless there are loud objections I plan to automate this again soon * . * > * * The above is an excellent idea. Perhaps if you could mail the output to * nanog and ripe-list the peer pressure would help and in some cases inform * LIRS/ISPs what they may unknowingly be doing wrong. * RIPE did this earlier inthe year for the European registries and it worked. * * Is there an APNIC equivelant ? * * It would also be a good idea IMHO if the Global registries (APNIC RIPE INTE * RNIC)had email lists, alongthe lines of the ones RIPE runs, which it encour * aged * new 'customers' to join. This may be the nearest we get to a global * isp email list. * * Regards * * Tony
Hello, yes, I can seeyou!!!!!! viele Gruesse Thomas Waelde (DENIC Hostmaster)
Actually - as of this week I mailed it automatically to
nanog@merit.edu, eof-list@ripe.net, apops@apnic.net
However, for some reason I dont see the nanog message. not sure why. This is partly a test to see if I see this one.
--Tony
Tony Barber <tonyb@uunet.pipex.com> writes: * Tony Bates wrote: * > * > * >This is a list of the "Top 50" players who if CIDRizing at the AS level * >could make a significant gain in the reduction of 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 50" and others to look at * >their CIDR capability. This is a revival of report that used to be * >posted in the early days of CIDR deployment (we even had a cidrd list * >and working group then). * > * >This looks purely at the classful routes in the system and shows what gain * if * >cidrizing at the AS-level could be made by forming an aggregate. * > * > --Tony * > * >P.S. Same caveat about AS name mappings not working quite right yet. * >P.P.S. Unless there are loud objections I plan to automate this again soon * . * > * * The above is an excellent idea. Perhaps if you could mail the output to * nanog and ripe-list the peer pressure would help and in some cases inform * LIRS/ISPs what they may unknowingly be doing wrong. * RIPE did this earlier inthe year for the European registries and it worked. * * Is there an APNIC equivelant ? * * It would also be a good idea IMHO if the Global registries (APNIC RIPE INTE * RNIC)had email lists, alongthe lines of the ones RIPE runs, which it encour * aged * new 'customers' to join. This may be the nearest we get to a global * isp email list. * * Regards * * Tony
-- _0_ "Hostmaster of the day" eMail: hostmaster@nic.de / \ RZ<-- Rechenzentrum/DE-NIC \_______/ Universitaet Karlsruhe Tel: +49 721 373723 / / | \ \ Postfach 6980 Fax: +49 721 373741 _/_/__|__\_\_ D-76128 Karlsruhe Fax: +49 721 32550
participants (3)
-
hostmaster＠nic.de -
Tony Barber -
Tony Bates