RE: 69.0.0.0/8 - Please update your filters
In my original thread, I referred to the "orphaned" equipment in use in many networks. I am sure it does not help when organizations have massive layoffs and the people that put these filters in place or originally managed the offending devices are no longer employed by the organization in question. As once told to me by a prior employer of mine (right before he eliminated my job): "After all, once the network is up and running, who needs all those "extra" people to manage it?" :-) Todd -----Original Message----- From: Sameer R. Manek [mailto:manek@ecst.csuchico.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:58 AM To: Todd A. Blank; jlewis@lewis.org; haesu@towardex.com Cc: stephen@sprunk.org; eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: 69.0.0.0/8 - Please update your filters
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Todd A. Blank
We were an early user of the 69/8 address space. I started the original thread on this subject back in Sept/Oct 2002. While I am very disturbed (but not surprised) to find out that there are still serious issues with networks acknowledging this allocation, this is one of the best suggestions I have seen for doing something to force the issue.
Filters once in place are rarely removed, unless the maintainers of the filters are notified about a specific problem. Even then the filters never completely go away. There is always a device or two in everyone's network that have been forgotten about, with outdated filters. Sameer
Just a data point to add here. when you have tried the other means of contact first, nanog has been helpful for getting things done. I had started having issue with the 69 blocks back in September and when posting for help all the networks had someone respond very quickly and it was resolved. Again, its good to have this common operational area to work these things out. On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Todd A. Blank wrote:
In my original thread, I referred to the "orphaned" equipment in use in many networks. I am sure it does not help when organizations have massive layoffs and the people that put these filters in place or originally managed the offending devices are no longer employed by the organization in question.
As once told to me by a prior employer of mine (right before he eliminated my job):
"After all, once the network is up and running, who needs all those "extra" people to manage it?" :-)
Todd
-----Original Message----- From: Sameer R. Manek [mailto:manek@ecst.csuchico.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:58 AM To: Todd A. Blank; jlewis@lewis.org; haesu@towardex.com Cc: stephen@sprunk.org; eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: 69.0.0.0/8 - Please update your filters
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Todd A. Blank
We were an early user of the 69/8 address space. I started the original thread on this subject back in Sept/Oct 2002. While I am very disturbed (but not surprised) to find out that there are still serious issues with networks acknowledging this allocation, this is one of the best suggestions I have seen for doing something to force the issue.
Filters once in place are rarely removed, unless the maintainers of the filters are notified about a specific problem. Even then the filters never completely go away. There is always a device or two in everyone's network that have been forgotten about, with outdated filters.
Sameer
participants (2)
-
Scott Granados -
Todd A. Blank