Summary

  • Tony Bates originated the CIDR Report; Philip Smith took it on and discussed updates at APNIC's 2002 Routing SIG. An APNIC 22 transcript shows another research team using “Philip's” weekly report as input.
  • APNIC's 2026 review describes a daily report that exposes redundant more-specific routes. Its public evidence once invited peer pressure; the continued growth of such routes suggests that invitation has lost force.

Think of an operator announcing a large block and then a smaller slice inside it. When the smaller route carries the same AS path as the covering one, a routing-table reader can ask what that extra line buys. It may buy nothing visible from that vantage point while every router still has another line to hold. The CIDR Report turned such questions into a recurring public habit. A table people would actually open could apply more pressure than a gavel.

Philip Smith entered a project with a history. Geoff Huston's 2026 account credits Tony Bates with the original concept, Smith with a later revision and Huston with further work. In the APNIC 14 Member Meeting minutes, Smith reported on Routing SIG discussions that included updates to the CIDR Report. That 2002 note is modest; it matters because the report sat inside the practical forum where people who ran networks compared their work.

By APNIC 22 in 2006, another presenter could say his team had taken “Philip's CIDR report” each week and added a step to a routing-path analysis. That is a useful measure of influence. A report had become a tool someone else could pick up. Smith's published material let a different team ask a second question about the network.

The mechanism remains concrete. APNIC Labs now assembles a daily BGP snapshot at AS131072. The report compares the full table with a possible aggregated version, names networks with many more-specific announcements and shows changes during the week. In its March 2026 snapshot, APNIC counted 461,596 advertised routes whose AS path matched an enclosing aggregate. The count belongs to that stated view of BGP. The detailed per-network pages suggest withdrawals while accounting for intended traffic engineering.

The report's real authority was visibility. Huston says the aim was to expose expensive routing habits and hope that self-moderation or peer pressure would follow. Operators own their decisions; a public list lets their peers ask why one decision imposes costs on the shared table. His 2026 review also finds more-specific route growth continuing in both IPv4 and IPv6. The mirror still works. Its ability to change conduct has weakened, in his assessment.

Smith's story is therefore about a tool that tells the truth even when nobody enjoys the score. Tony Bates started it; Smith carried and revised it; Huston still tends it. The report can show the redundant line and the network that announced it. The next move belongs to people with hands on routers, budgets and change windows. A weekly weigh-in has never eaten the biscuits for anyone.