74/8, 75/8, and 76/8 These /20's out of ASN 36666 Cymru Testing: 74.63.0.0/20 75.127.0.0/20 76.191.0.0/20 ...should be withdrawn now. Allocation out of 74/8 happened on 12/20/2005 and 76/8 1/19/2006. Operationally, the testing should stop prior to allocations from the block, regardless of size. I think it's a binary question, they're either in production or not, and if they are, there should be no intrusive testing. Best, -M< -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574 Member of the Technical Staff Network Operations hannigan@renesys.com
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:36:31PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
74/8, 75/8, and 76/8 These /20's out of ASN 36666 Cymru Testing:
74.63.0.0/20 75.127.0.0/20 76.191.0.0/20
...should be withdrawn now. Allocation out of 74/8 happened on 12/20/2005 and 76/8 1/19/2006.
Operationally, the testing should stop prior to allocations from the block, regardless of size. I think it's a binary question, they're either in production or not, and if they are, there should be no intrusive testing.
It looks like they were given real ARIN allocations for those test prefixes, so its not like those blocks are going to assigned to some random network who goes to use them and finds out there is a Cymru announcement on their space. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:36:31PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
74/8, 75/8, and 76/8 These /20's out of ASN 36666 Cymru Testing:
74.63.0.0/20 75.127.0.0/20 76.191.0.0/20
...should be withdrawn now. Allocation out of 74/8 happened on 12/20/2005 and 76/8 1/19/2006.
Operationally, the testing should stop prior to allocations from the block, regardless of size. I think it's a binary question, they're either in production or not, and if they are, there should be no intrusive testing.
It looks like they were given real ARIN allocations for those test prefixes, so its not like those blocks are going to assigned to some random network who goes to use them and finds out there is a Cymru announcement on their space.
Good point. ARIN doesn't have a policy to release space for testing so it must be real. There's a lot of reasons why they should come out and be returned to the pool besides the whois listing which is why I made the (operational) post. Stop picking on me ras. :) I've got whole countries on me. -M< -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574 Member of the Technical Staff Network Operations hannigan@renesys.com
] It looks like they were given real ARIN allocations for those test ] prefixes, so its not like those blocks are going to assigned to some ] random network who goes to use them and finds out there is a Cymru ] announcement on their space. Yes, agreed. :) -- Rob Thomas Team Cymru http://www.cymru.com/ ASSERT(coffee != empty);
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
74.63.0.0/20 75.127.0.0/20 76.191.0.0/20
...should be withdrawn now.
Why?
Allocation out of 74/8 happened on 12/20/2005 and 76/8 1/19/2006.
So?
Operationally, the testing should stop prior to allocations from the block, regardless of size. I think it's a binary question, they're either in production or not, and if they are, there should be no intrusive testing.
From my experience with 69/8 space (69box.atlantic.net), I can tell you, networks with outdated bogon filters will always exist. If Cymru is
Why should the testing stop (and what sort of testing did Cymru do?)? providing or can provide a tool for people to use to test/verify that certain networks have such filters affecting the above blocks, then it's still a useful service. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
74.63.0.0/20 75.127.0.0/20 76.191.0.0/20
...should be withdrawn now.
Why?
hannigan@guinness> ping 74.63.1.2 PING 74.63.1.2 (74.63.1.2): 56 data byes --- 74.63.1.2 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss hannigan@guinness> ping 75.127.1.2 PING 75.127.1.2 (75.127.1.2): 56 data bytes --- 75.127.1.2 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss hannigan@guinness> ping 76.191.1.2 PING 76.191.1.2 (76.191.1.2): 56 data bytes --- 76.191.1.2 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss Looks like either my provider is busted or it's down. I figured it was forgotten about since its the same at 3 of my providers. Not that big of a deal. I observed it while doing something else and got distracted by an archives post about it. Like I said, lots of good reasons not to officially test in production superblocks, like being forgotten about. It's easy to do with something like this. I definitely would've forgotten myself. -M< -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574 Member of the Technical Staff Network Operations hannigan@renesys.com
Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
74.63.0.0/20 75.127.0.0/20 76.191.0.0/20
...should be withdrawn now.
Why?
hannigan@guinness> ping 74.63.1.2 PING 74.63.1.2 (74.63.1.2): 56 data byes
--- 74.63.1.2 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
hannigan@guinness> ping 75.127.1.2 PING 75.127.1.2 (75.127.1.2): 56 data bytes
--- 75.127.1.2 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
hannigan@guinness> ping 76.191.1.2 PING 76.191.1.2 (76.191.1.2): 56 data bytes
--- 76.191.1.2 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
Looks like either my provider is busted or it's down. I figured it was forgotten about since its the same at 3 of my providers. Not that big of a deal. I observed it while doing something else and got distracted by an archives post about it.
That seemed to be temporary, they're all currently responding for me. nsuan@fenrir:~$ ping -c 3 -q 74.63.1.2 PING 74.63.1.2 (74.63.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data. --- 74.63.1.2 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 67.626/104.558/141.490/36.932 ms nsuan@fenrir:~$ ping -c 3 -q 75.127.1.2 PING 75.127.1.2 (75.127.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data. --- 75.127.1.2 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 56.869/57.637/58.406/0.805 ms nsuan@fenrir:~$ ping -c 3 -q 76.191.1.2 PING 76.191.1.2 (76.191.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data. --- 76.191.1.2 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2002ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 49.868/51.900/55.391/2.493 ms
Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
74.63.0.0/20 75.127.0.0/20 76.191.0.0/20
...should be withdrawn now.
Why?
hannigan@guinness> ping 74.63.1.2 PING 74.63.1.2 (74.63.1.2): 56 data byes
--- 74.63.1.2 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
hannigan@guinness> ping 75.127.1.2 PING 75.127.1.2 (75.127.1.2): 56 data bytes
--- 75.127.1.2 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
hannigan@guinness> ping 76.191.1.2 PING 76.191.1.2 (76.191.1.2): 56 data bytes
--- 76.191.1.2 ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
Looks like either my provider is busted or it's down. I figured it was forgotten about since its the same at 3 of my providers. Not that big of a deal. I observed it while doing something else and got distracted by an archives post about it.
That seemed to be temporary, they're all currently responding for me.
nsuan@fenrir:~$ ping -c 3 -q 74.63.1.2 PING 74.63.1.2 (74.63.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
--- 74.63.1.2 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 67.626/104.558/141.490/36.932 ms
nsuan@fenrir:~$ ping -c 3 -q 75.127.1.2 PING 75.127.1.2 (75.127.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
--- 75.127.1.2 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 56.869/57.637/58.406/0.805 ms
nsuan@fenrir:~$ ping -c 3 -q 76.191.1.2 PING 76.191.1.2 (76.191.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data.
--- 76.191.1.2 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2002ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 49.868/51.900/55.391/2.493 ms
Looks like it depends which way you are facing: 11 TeamCymru.demarc.cogentco.com (38.112.20.146) 40 ms (ttl=244!) 48 ms (ttl=244!) 53 ms (ttl=244!) 12 gw02-s2-3-0.ord01.cymru.com (38.229.32.1) 56 ms 56 ms 64 ms 13 v45.core01-rtr01.ord01.cymru.com (68.22.187.187) 53 ms 52 ms 51 ms 14 * * * 13 0.so-7-0-0.xl1.chi1.alter.net (152.63.64.133) 37.643 ms 60.511 ms 40.213 ms 14 pos6-0.gw4.chi1.alter.net (152.63.68.225) 46.111 ms 39.242 ms 36.061 ms 15 cymru-gw.customer.alter.net (63.65.17.162) 41.776 ms 42.378 ms 41.896 ms 16 v45.core01-rtr01.ord01.cymru.com (68.22.187.187) 41.909 ms 41.88 ms 44.4 ms 17 75.127.1.2 (75.127.1.2) 41.004 ms 45.092 ms 40.507 ms Dunno. -M< -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation (w) 617-395-8574 Member of the Technical Staff Network Operations hannigan@renesys.com
Looks like it depends which way you are facing:
the problem with this experiment was that it seems to depend much more on cymru's upstreams and filters than those of the actual networks we wanted to allow to test. :-( perhaps rob could put the testing boxes is a more transparent networking environment. randy
participants (6)
-
Jon Lewis -
Martin Hannigan -
Nicholas Suan -
Randy Bush -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Rob Thomas