On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Arnold Nipper wrote: : On 11.02.2004 00:43 Scott Weeks wrote: : > On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Matthew Crocker wrote: : > : > : I've look at IANA but it doesn't give enough detailed information. I : > : would like to find a list of /8 or /16s and what geographic region the : > : exist in. I know it isn't an exact science but something close would : > : be nice. I know 210/8 & 211/8 are APNIC, I likes to know stuff like : > : 210.100/16 is Korea and 210.120/16 is China, etc. Does anyone have a : > : list I can pull from? : > This only works for a certain percentage of networks. Most likely a : > higher percentage post tech bubble collapse. I used to work for a company : > that had 167.216.128.0/17 and we announced that globally. So you couldn't : > say 167.216.128.0/17 was in the US (or even NA) as it'd appear from ARIN : > or other data sources. : > : : When you look up that network in : ftp://ftp.arin.net/pub/stats/arin/delegated-arin-latest you get : : grep 167.216.128.0 delegated-arin-latest : arin|US|ipv4|167.216.128.0|4096|20000531|allocated : : I.e. Actually no /17 but 167.216.128.0/20 and based in US. q.e.d. Exactly my point. We were a GLOBAL network and you saw that advertisement in all parts of the world. You couldn't say it was in the US, or even in NA. We did cold potato because we had the bitchenest ;) network. So you'd hit our network in the local area and use it for the rest of the path. The offices weren't even all in the US. Only the main office was in SF. Notice that I use past tense in my words. As far as how it's announced now-a-days, C&W did (and is doing) a lot more dumb a$$ things than that... scott