Re: [urgent assistance] 198.32.0.0/16 - Disappeared...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Just as a follow-up to this: The situation still exists: 198.32.0.0/16 is still missing in action in the routing system, and more importantly, so are EP.net's DNS servers. :-( So, if Bill magically re-appears, or if anyone else can provide any insight or assistance, please contact ops-staff@mail-abuse.org. Thanks, - - ferg - -- "Fergie" <fergdawg@netzero.net> wrote: Paging Bill Manning... Unfortunately, we've tried to reach Bill, as well as other folks at EP.NET to no avail, and this is impacting us quite negatively. [snip] Not available in any routing tables I have access to or any of the looking glasses from http://www.nanog.org/lookingglass.html. this is significant because any in-addr blocks that are authoritative @ flag.ep.net and dot.ep.net will now suffer from reverse name resolution issues. - - From ATT route server: route-server>sh ip bgp 198.32.4.13 % Network not in table - - From CerfNET route server: route-server>sh ip bgp 198.32.4.13 % Network not in table Allstream Toronto: route-server.east>sh ip bgp 198.32.4.13 % Network not in table This has been a problem since yesterday evening. [snip] FYI, some of our address space has been sub-allocated via EP.net and relies on it's reachability: [DOMAIN whois information for EP.NET ] Domain Name: EP.NET Namespace: ICANN Unsponsored Generic TLD - http://www.icann.org TLD Info: See IANA Whois - http://www.iana.org/root-whois/net.htm Registry: VeriSign, Inc. - http://www.verisign-grs.com Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC. - http://www.networksolutions.com Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com Name Server[whois+dns with ip] DOT.EP.NET 198.32.2.10 Name Server[from whois+dns, whois ip]: DOT.EP.NET 2001:478:6:0:230:48FF:FE22:6A29 Name Server[whois+dns with ip] FLAG.EP.NET 198.32.4.13 Updated Date: 11-Jan-2007 Creation Date: 09-Dec-1994 Expiration Date: 08-Dec-2012 Status: clientTransferProhibited [whois.networksolutions.com] Please contact me off-list is you have any inisght into this. Thanks, - - ferg [snip] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.1 (Build 1012) wj8DBQFGRV/jq1pz9mNUZTMRAjw/AJ0eV+YKWd1L1ze/eTStl+JaJC8s5QCfZhh0 Rf/sutXg5Mj9jK0IZA571do= =8UzZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
On 12-May-2007, at 06:34, Fergie wrote:
Just as a follow-up to this:
The situation still exists: 198.32.0.0/16 is still missing in action in the routing system, and more importantly, so are EP.net's DNS servers. :-(
I'm not sure that 198.32.0.0/16 was ever advertised. EP.NET runs a registry for exchange points and other people that Bill feels like helping out and assigns from that number range; since the /16 covers many varied applications and organisations all over the planet, it seems unlikely that a /16 would do anything useful. I have no problems reaching FLAG.EP.NET (198.32.4.13), DOT.EP.NET (198.32.2.10), both of which live in subnets numbered from 198.32.0.0/16 and administered by EP.NET directly. A quick RIS query suggests that none of the RIS probes have ever seen an advertisement 198.32.0.0/16.
So, if Bill magically re-appears, or if anyone else can provide any insight or assistance, please contact ops-staff@mail-abuse.org.
There are a number of prominent DNS servers numbered within 198.32.0.0/16; however, for various reasons a noticeable number of network operators take the position that all routes within that /16 are necessarily bogons, since it was originally designated for use in numbering exchange-point fabrics and those blocks ought properly not be advertised. I take no philosophical position on any of that (it's far too sunny and verdant here to form that kind of opinion here this afternoon), and in a similar vein apologies for any historical inaccuracies I may have inferred above. However, from a purely operational perspective, you may want to check that the specific subnets of 198.32.0.0/16 that you are interested in have not been filtered by your transit providers. Joe
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 06:35:15PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
On 12-May-2007, at 06:34, Fergie wrote:
Just as a follow-up to this:
The situation still exists: 198.32.0.0/16 is still missing in action in the routing system, and more importantly, so are EP.net's DNS servers. :-(
I'm not sure that 198.32.0.0/16 was ever advertised. EP.NET runs a registry for exchange points and other people that Bill feels like helping out and assigns from that number range; since the /16 covers many varied applications and organisations all over the planet, it seems unlikely that a /16 would do anything useful.
I think you are correct. While i still don't see this /16 in my routing tables, I can now reach both dot. and flag.
I have no problems reaching FLAG.EP.NET (198.32.4.13), DOT.EP.NET (198.32.2.10), both of which live in subnets numbered from 198.32.0.0/16 and administered by EP.NET directly.
I can assure that this wasnt the case since this past friday.
A quick RIS query suggests that none of the RIS probes have ever seen an advertisement 198.32.0.0/16.
So, if Bill magically re-appears, or if anyone else can provide any insight or assistance, please contact ops-staff@mail-abuse.org.
There are a number of prominent DNS servers numbered within 198.32.0.0/16; however, for various reasons a noticeable number of network operators take the position that all routes within that /16 are necessarily bogons, since it was originally designated for use in numbering exchange-point fabrics and those blocks ought properly not be advertised.
I take no philosophical position on any of that (it's far too sunny and verdant here to form that kind of opinion here this afternoon), and in a similar vein apologies for any historical inaccuracies I may have inferred above. However, from a purely operational perspective, you may want to check that the specific subnets of 198.32.0.0/16 that you are interested in have not been filtered by your transit providers.
that's definately not the issue. Something is working now that didnt previously. Someone at isi fixed something and did'nt bother to either acknowledge, and report the problem. But that's probably too much to expect. Cheers, Carlos.
participants (3)
-
Carlos Kamtha -
Fergie -
Joe Abley