Re: 204.82.160.0/22 invisible (fwd)
Sean Doran wrote:
Thank-you Andrew. That matches my diagnosis.
Kai: computel, our customer, should be able to help you prepare an entry for the RADB; failing that, please feel free to turn to noc@ans.net or engineer@sprint.net for assistance in updating the RADB so that your prefix is heard by ANS.
See, ANS has an inbound route-filter too... and it's MUCH older than Sprint's.
Sean. - -- Sean Doran <smd@sprint.net> - --
In lieu of Computel knowing what the RADB is, I will handle the RADB entry myself, if I don't decide to recycle the assignment altogether and start from scratch, which is likely by now, after analyzing and evaluating the situation a bit more. The Internic should strap on more asbestos now. Is it preferable for Sprint to announce/act under my (future) ASN rather than take the route into one of their own ASNs ? Computel is kinda a like dark tunnel between us at this time... THANKS to all for the response and fix for now. bye, Kai "don't filter my route" Schlichting ps: some NANOG readers wrote back that my route is looping overseas: yes, there is some trouble this hour...the evil of default routes. --- Kai Schlichting Internet Project Manager, BelCom, Inc. 515 Madison Ave Suite 2100 NY,NY 10022 212-705-9500 (voice) 212-755-0864 (fax) kai@belcom.net Ask us about Internet service in the CIS! Bringing Internet, where there is none
On Mon, 25 Sep 1995, Kai wrote:
In lieu of Computel knowing what the RADB is, I will handle the RADB entry myself, if I don't decide to recycle the assignment altogether and start from scratch, which is likely by now, after analyzing and evaluating the situation a bit more. The Internic should strap on more asbestos now.
Just out of curiosity, why should Internic strap on more asbestos? I thought the following would have been warning enough: ***PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION PRIOR TO REQUESTING AN IP NUMBER FROM THE INTERNIC: Due to technical and implementation constraints on the Internet routing system and the possibility of routing overload, certain policies may need to be enforced by the major transit providers in order to reduce the number of globally advertised routes. These potential policies may include setting limits on the size of CIDR prefixes added to the routing tables, filtering of non-aggregated routes, etc. Therefore, addresses obtained directly from the InterNIC (non-provider-based, also known as portable) are not guaranteed to be routable on the Internet. -dorian ______________________________________________________________________________ Dorian Kim Email: dorian@cic.net 2901 Hubbard Drive Network Engineer Phone: (313)998-6976 Ann Arbor MI 48105 CICNet Network Systems Fax: (313)998-6105 http://www.cic.net/~dorian
participants (2)
-
Dorian Kim -
Kai