North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Help with bad announcement from UUnet

  • From: Mark E. Mallett
  • Date: Thu Mar 28 17:27:23 2002

No sooner do I hit send than do I get a note from UUnet that they
have fixed the problem.

Thanks to UUnet and sorry to the list.


On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 05:17:38PM -0500, Mark E. Mallett wrote:
> Well, via UUnet.  
> Summary:
> We (AS3578) are announcing a netblock
> A bogus announcement via UUnet from a UUnet customer is interfering
> with this.  Is somebody at UUnet able to cut through some red tape and
> fix it?  It's easy to verify that the announcement from AS6921 does
> not produce a working route, and that the owner of the netblock does
> not want it announced there.  I would like UUnet to block the bogus
> announcement from its customer.
> Reasonably gory detail:
> That netblock was previously hooked up via (AS6921)
> which has recently been bought at bankruptcy court by Covad.
> continues to announce the netblock to UUnet.
> There is nobody left at InternetConnect to respond to a request to
> stop announcing it.  The announcement from AS6921 is interfering with
> our valid announcent.  It's fairly easy to demonstrate that the
> 701->6921 path for this netblock does not work.
> The owner of the netblock has contacted UUnet and asked them to stop
> accepting the announcement.  Mostly he has gotten nowhere; the best
> response he has been able to get is that the contract will expire in a
> few months and the announcement will expire at that time.
> I have contacted UUnet and have been told to take it up with my
> upstreams 'cuz they won't deal directly with me.  They also said to
> have a nice day.
> I contacted my upstream of choice (Genuity) who said they can't talk
> to UUNet on my behalf because it's not their business (despite the fact
> that the announcement out of UUnet is interfering with the valid
> announcement out of Genuity).  All around it's a pretty good gridlock
> system.
> Also: in the theory that the UUNet filters towards their customer may
> be driven off the RADB I've attempted to remove the old RADB entry for
> that netblock.  The maintainer for that entry is also defunct so I
> requested a manual deletion; while I have hopes of that eventually
> taking place, I guess the wheels turn slowly at the RADB, or maybe they
> are waiting for the April deadbeat removal.
> Complete detail:
> [ nobody wants that ]
> -mm-

Mark E. Mallett                  |
MV Communications, Inc.          |
NH Internet Access since 1991    |    (603) 629-0000 / FAX: 629-0049