North American Network Operators Group

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


  • From: W.D.McKinney
  • Date: Sat Jun 04 01:58:50 2005

Christopher L. Morrow wrote:

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Randy Bush wrote:

more grist for your mill:

TWT has a route-server (from's listings) note the age of
this route:
B [200/0] via, 7w0d

i don't get it. this is supposed to be a good thing.

am i supposed to just announce the 200+ /8s that cover the
net, figuring anyone who has space will announce their
longer prefix?

tricky stuff sits and waits to backfire on one. so the
older and lazier of us tend to play as close to the
straight and narrow as we can to get the job done.

So, I'm not condoning this at all, just offering a possible explanation...
As was explained at one time on this list I think? Some folks will, in
favor of holding a complete 150k+ routes, hold large enough covering
routes internally and not most of the the smaller routes to save memory.
Something like 'almost default'... it confused me and it caused me some
pain so it seems like a bad thing. This seems to re-enforce that idea. (to
me atleast).

Perhaps someone will fix it? Where is the route leaking from TWTC in the
first place? A customer or ? Apparently only 14608 sees it at route-views?
Is alaska fiberstar listening tonight? a random sample of routerservers
off shows no one else with this route...

As you can see from the website they don't have any IP operations info available.
My guess is that they out-sourced IP operations as they filed bankruptcy in 2001. figures