Re: Two renumbering questions
My ISP is changing upstreams for a variety of reasons around May 18th.
1. I have a /24 SWIPed to me, 205.238.207.0. The ARIN listing doesn't say it's non-portable, so can I take it with me? The ARIN db lost all portable/non-portable atributes in the conversion. Unless folks have gone back and requested they get re-tagged,
portability is unclear from the ARIN db. [snip]
rather than filtered for being too long? It's right in the middle of the old upstream's block 205.238.192/18. If it is a singleton hole in a /18, your most net-friendly action would be to voluntarily renumber. The provider's most net-friendly action would be to indicate it was non-portable.
[snip]
(There's other servers elsewhere that won't get renumbered.) If I tell the Internic that ivan's host number has changed, will that update all the domains served from it? Yes, that's the purpose of the HST record. Update the HST and you're all set.
Joe -- Joe Provo, Network Architect 508.229.8400 x3006 Network Operations Center Fax 508.229.2375 UltraNet Communications, Inc., an RCN Company <jprovo@ultra.net>
1. I have a /24 SWIPed to me, 205.238.207.0. The ARIN listing doesn't say it's non-portable, so can I take it with me? The ARIN db lost all portable/non-portable atributes in the conversion. Unless folks have gone back and requested they get re-tagged, portability is unclear from the ARIN db.
Lost as in not displayed to queries or lost as in nobody knows what's portable anymore and the canonical data is destroyed? I can't imagine the latter is the case, but your assertion is of sufficient mangnitude to demand clarification. -alan
1. I have a /24 SWIPed to me, 205.238.207.0. The ARIN listing doesn't say it's non-portable, so can I take it with me? The ARIN db lost all portable/non-portable atributes in the conversion. Unless folks have gone back and requested they get re-tagged, portability is unclear from the ARIN db.
Lost as in not displayed to queries or lost as in nobody knows what's portable anymore and the canonical data is destroyed?
I can't imagine the latter is the case, but your assertion is of sufficient mangnitude to demand clarification.
The data was never lost or destroyed. The portable/non-portable data is kept in a comments field and during the conversion that field was not tagged (for some reason) to show up in WHOIS. As soon as we realized the problem it was fixed. Individual addresses that are reassigned from an ISPs block are not usually tagged portable or non-portable, it is the parent block that states whether addresses in that block are portable or not. Kim
-alan
Joe Provo - Network Architect wrote:
If it is a singleton hole in a /18, your most net-friendly action would be to voluntarily renumber. The provider's most net-friendly action would be to indicate it was non-portable.
Why is it so rare to see this type of response? -- ======================================================================= Brian Wallingford voice: 508.646.0030 Network Operations Manager email: brian@meganet.net MEGANET COMMUNICATIONS, TCIX, Inc. http://www.meganet.net =======================================================================
On Tue, May 05, 1998 at 02:17:05AM -0400, Brian Wallingford wrote:
Joe Provo - Network Architect wrote:
If it is a singleton hole in a /18, your most net-friendly action would be to voluntarily renumber. The provider's most net-friendly action would be to indicate it was non-portable.
Why is it so rare to see this type of response?
Because it requires _work_... and as was _just_ noted on the online-writing list: people are _lazy_. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
If it is a singleton hole in a /18, your most net-friendly action would be to voluntarily renumber. The provider's most net-friendly action would be to indicate it was non-portable.
In case I didn't make it clear in my original question, I figured I'd probably have to renumber -- I was more wondering if I had the option to hold on to the old addresses for a little while during the transition, since the overlap I'll get between the old and new upstreams will (for a variety of reasons) probably not be very long. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
participants (6)
-
Alan Hannan -
Brian Wallingford -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Joe Provo - Network Architect -
johnl＠iecc.com -
Kim Hubbard