Looks like PSInet is demonstrating their complete and total lack of clue again. [root@eth0-core0]:/ # traceroute 1.1.1.1 traceroute to 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 core1-eth0-EnterZone.Columbus.FNSI.Net (209.115.127.21) 1.214 ms 1.174 ms 1.365 ms 2 border1-atm6.SanJose.fnsi.net (206.183.239.94) 59.736 ms 61.64 ms 59.389 ms 3 nw.sc.psi.net (198.32.128.53) 62.116 ms 63.285 ms 61.419 ms 4 ce.sc.psi.net (38.1.3.2) 137.828 ms 136.418 ms 133.547 ms 5 rc4.central.us.psi.net (38.1.22.4) 135.99 ms 139.26 ms 135.874 ms 6 dallas12.tx.isdn.psi.net (38.146.199.119) 136.319 ms 137.073 ms 133.949 ms 7 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1) 172.03 ms 182.249 ms 188.195 ms [rs.arin.net] IANA (RESERVED-9) Netname: RESERVED-9 Netnumber: 1.0.0.0 Coordinator: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA-ARIN) iana@iana.org (310) 822-1511 Record last updated on 02-Mar-98. Database last updated on 12-May-98 16:09:12 EDT. At 03:55 PM 5/13/98 +0900, you wrote:
who's living here?
-sasaki
-------------------------------------------------- SJS1>sh ip bgp BGP table version is 15571821, local router ID is 158.205.224.4 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * 1.1.1.0/24 204.70.158.109 80 0 3561 174 i * i 137.39.136.73 80 0 701 174 i *> 137.39.252.17 80 0 701 174 i ...snip...
SJS1>ping 1.1.1.1
Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echoes to 1.1.1.1, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 96/208/396 ms SJS1> --------------------------------------------------
------- John Fraizer (tvo) | __ _ | The System Administrator | / / (_)__ __ ____ __ | The choice mailto:tvo@EnterZone.Net | / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / | of a GNU http://www.EnterZone.Net/ | /____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ | Generation A 486 is a terrible thing to waste...
Hi, actually I find it quite funny that you DO reach a web server at the given address inside PSI, some aviation guys. ...which lead me into investigating the lower IP ranges again. Can anyone enlighten me as to what happend i.e. to the 12.x.x.x range? It seems to be sub-allocated by now, and I see a lot af routes out of that range in my routing table originated by a couple of different providers. Was there a change in policy? Is this into offical allocation by now? Last but not least, for anyone inside that range: Any problems with prefix length filters so far? rgds, Landi -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Klaus Landefeld Nacamar Group PLC Technical Director Robert-Bosch-Strasse 32 D-63303 Dreieich / Germany e-mail: landefeld@nacamar.net voice: +49-6103-993-230 www : www.nacamar.net fax : +49-6103-993-299 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Klaus> Can anyone enlighten me as to what happend i.e. to the 12.x.x.x Klaus> range? It seems to be sub-allocated by now, and I see a lot af Klaus> routes out of that range in my routing table originated by a Klaus> couple of different providers. Klaus> Was there a change in policy? Is this into offical allocation Klaus> by now? Last but not least, for anyone inside that range: Any Klaus> problems with prefix length filters so far? I posted this to NANOG back in October last year: : AT&T has been assigned 12/8, and we're announcing 12/8. Customers : are being allocated portions of this non-portable space, and you'll : only see more-specifics when our customers multi-home. This is just : like any other CIDR block used for customers. Thanks. Jay B. -- Jay Borkenhagen jayb@att.com AT&T WorldNet Service
Can anyone enlighten me as to what happend i.e. to the 12.x.x.x range? It seems to be sub-allocated by now, and I see a lot af routes out of that range in my routing table originated by a couple of different providers.
Was there a change in policy? Is this into offical allocation by now? Last but not least, for anyone inside that range: Any problems with prefix length filters so far?
I'm not sure about 12/8, but recently 61/8 was allocated to APNIC and we were probably the first to get allocated a /19 in this address space. A few providers were filtering at /8, but in pretty much all cases a quick email to them got their filters changed. -- Ben Buxton___bb@zip.com.au_____ o _ _--_|\ ZIP Internet P/L Zip's Network Dude /____|___|_)________/______\______________________ Carbon: 9270-4777 | . \_.--._* Virtually Silicon: 9273-7111, 9247-7288 Paper: 92475276 v the best :)
I'm not sure about 12/8, but recently 61/8 was allocated to APNIC and we were probably the first to get allocated a /19 in this address space.
A few providers were filtering at /8, but in pretty much all cases a quick email to them got their filters changed.
If the announcements in old A space are /19 or shorter, folk will listen. randy
On Wed, 13 May 1998, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm not sure about 12/8, but recently 61/8 was allocated to APNIC and we were probably the first to get allocated a /19 in this address space.
A few providers were filtering at /8, but in pretty much all cases a quick email to them got their filters changed.
If the announcements in old A space are /19 or shorter, folk will listen.
try to get australian providers to advertise a /19 or shorter :) the problem is that we allocate /22s. /23s and /24s regularly as a matter of course, and invariably all their customers will multihome and suddenly we see lots of announcements of longer prefixes. the concept of "provider blocks" has not quite been embraced all over the world :) | andrew khoo <andrew@ourworld.net> | aus: +61-2-9223-2777 | | rebel leader and network architect | usa: +1-415-902-8820 | | Ourworld Global Network, Australia | --- We Bite(tm) --- |
On Wed, May 13, 1998 at 04:20:00PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm not sure about 12/8, but recently 61/8 was allocated to APNIC and we were probably the first to get allocated a /19 in this address space.
A few providers were filtering at /8, but in pretty much all cases a quick email to them got their filters changed.
If the announcements in old A space are /19 or shorter, folk will listen.
Most folk will listen...but not all. Digex are still ignoring it it seems (but it was working a couple of months back). -- Ben Buxton___bb@zip.com.au_____ o _ _--_|\ ZIP Internet P/L Zip's Network Dude /____|___|_)________/______\______________________ Carbon: 9270-4777 | . \_.--._* Virtually Silicon: 9273-7111, 9247-7288 Paper: 92475276 v the best :)
participants (6)
-
andrew khoo -
Ben Buxton -
Jay Borkenhagen -
John Fraizer - Administrator -
Klaus Landefeld -
Randy Bush