North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Operational Issues with 220.127.116.11/8...
You can add dvgarage to that list of domains not configured properly for 69.x.x.x as well. They use GBLX, who is properly configured but once it hits their internal network the problems start. On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 [email protected] wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Todd A. Blank wrote: > > > I hereby challenge one of you to trade CIDRs with us. You take this > > 18.104.22.168/19 ARIN assigned us and you go spend your valuable time, > > resources, and money working out what seems to be "nobody's problem". > > Was this an initial allocation into which you're renumbering out of > provider space, or a trade-in (you gave some block back to ARIN and got > this one)? Based on the newness of your ASN and sho ip bg regex _26483, > I'm guessing it's your first allocation. Assuming you did this because > you were about out of the space allocated to you by your provider(s), have > you looked into getting some more space from your providers to keep things > running while the issues with 22.214.171.124/8 filters are worked out? Even if > they've already given you as much space as their policies allow, I suspect > you could talk them into bending the rules in a case like this. Creating > more networks to renumber sucks, but it beats losing customers, and you > have plenty of time...probably even more than the ARIN published > guidelines for renumbering due to the problems you've encountered...and > what can ARIN do if you go beyond their suggested deadline anyway? > > I don't have any spare CIDRs to trade you. In fact, I'll be doing the > ARIN dance again soon to get more space since we're running out. I'm > really not looking forward to being in the same boat as you, but at least > I know now to expect trouble, especially if we get a chunk of the same /8 > you did. > > In your first message, you posted a couple of web sites that were not > reachable from your IP space. It'd be more useful (to people in your > shoes) and more embarrassing (to the offending networks) if you could post > the names of the networks/backbones you've identified thus far that are > still filtering 126.96.36.199/8. > > Maybe someone reading this list will know someone who knows someone at > those networks and be able to get something done. If nothing else, it > gives the next guy who gets 188.8.131.52/8 space a starting point of networks > to check connectivity to and networks to contact if things don't work for > them. Then those networks will have multiple people pestering them to fix > their filters even if not everyone affected has customers that actually > care about reaching those nets. > > > Also, if you would like to come over and answer the support calls and > > explain to our customers why the competitor's networks can reach these > > sites, but ours can't. Hey - after all, it's just CIDR - it's all the > > same, right? > > Have you given customers in the affected space the option of renumbering > back into your previous IP space? > > > What all of you don't know, is that for the first month we had this > > CIDR, we could not register hosts on it at NetSol/Verisign, because > > their core registry did not recognize it. We have been getting F***ed > > That should have set off some alarm bells and prompted a post to nanog a > month ago. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Jon Lewis *[email protected]*| I route > System Administrator | therefore you are > Atlantic Net | > _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ > >