<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: The Cidr Report

  • To: Daniel Roesen < >
  • From: "Christopher L. Morrow" < >
  • Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 03:23:00 +0000 (GMT)
  • Cc:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Daniel Roesen wrote:

>
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:23:29PM -0800, Austin Schutz wrote:
> > > > ASnum    NetsNow NetsAggr  NetGain   % Gain   Description
> > > >
> > > > AS18566      751        6      745    99.2%   CVAD Covad Communications
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > 	Sort of - from here it looks like they aren't actually announcing
> > the supernets.
>
> So you don't see:
> 64.105.0.0/16
> 66.134.0.0/16
> 66.166.0.0/15
> 67.100.0.0/14
> 68.164.0.0/14
> 69.3.0.0/16
>
> ?

there are still places on the net that do odd-ball filtering... perhaps he
lives in one? (or nets from one?) (he being austin...)

>
> > Plus the public hand slap is kind of amusing. But that's probably
> > just me.
>
> The problem is that they probably couldn't care less. There is no
> public sanctioning and pressure.

and like I said, they MIGHT have a valid reason for this. I seem to
remember a cable company a few months back doing this during a renumber,
or some migration... I was hoping Covad would stand up, or someone who
knows more (and has less of an axe to grind?), and set the record
straight.

Or, 'just make it go away' and leave randy/daniel/austin to wonder what
happened :) Either way, so long as it stops, right?




  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>