www.worldnet.att.net Network not in table
Is anyone else having difficulty reaching ATT's Worldnet? traceroute to www.worldnet.att.net (204.127.43.37), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 e3-4.aggr2.bwi1.network.coloco.com (199.34.53.129) 1.769 ms 1.869 ms 1.777 ms 2 fa3-0.core1.bwi1.network.coloco.com (198.180.62.134) 2.162 ms 1.752 ms 1.836 ms 3 dca1-lan2-g6-0-102.cidera.net (208.184.7.229) 2.706 ms 3.114 ms 3.328 ms 4 dca1-lan2-g6-0-102.cidera.net (208.184.7.229) 2.566 ms !H * * C ***************************************************** AT&T Enhanced Network Services (CERFnet) route-server For questions please contact vandusb@attens.com ***************************************************** route-server>show ip bgp 204.127.43.37 % Network not in table
SD> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:30:07 -0400 (EDT) SD> From: Sean Donelan SD> Is anyone else having difficulty reaching ATT's Worldnet? SD> SD> route-server>show ip bgp 204.127.43.37 SD> % Network not in table oregon-ix reports ASN 4181 originating 0/0. On borders I maintain, I see "not in table". Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 05:30:07PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
Is anyone else having difficulty reaching ATT's Worldnet?
traceroute to www.worldnet.att.net (204.127.43.37), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
So far as I know, www.worldnet.att.net is intended to be reachable only from Worldnet dialups. 204.127.0.0/17 is not advertised to the Internet at large. www.att.net is in 204.127.128.0/17 and is reachable from anywhere. -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.
On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 05:30:07PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
Is anyone else having difficulty reaching ATT's Worldnet?
traceroute to www.worldnet.att.net (204.127.43.37), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
So far as I know, www.worldnet.att.net is intended to be reachable only from Worldnet dialups. 204.127.0.0/17 is not advertised to the Internet at large. www.att.net is in 204.127.128.0/17 and is reachable from anywhere.
If so is (which appears to be the case), for what reason is the (global) DNS populated with corresponding data? Somewhat harmless, but fairly easy to clean up (via, for example, DNS configuration views) -- for making things more beautiful. Cheers, mh
-- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.
On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 03:32:39PM +0200, Michael Hallgren wrote:
So far as I know, www.worldnet.att.net is intended to be reachable only from Worldnet dialups. 204.127.0.0/17 is not advertised to the Internet at large. www.att.net is in 204.127.128.0/17 and is reachable from anywhere.
If so is (which appears to be the case), for what reason is the (global) DNS populated with corresponding data? Somewhat harmless, but fairly easy to clean up (via, for example, DNS configuration views) -- for making things more beautiful.
I've never been a fan of split DNS views, because it makes assumptions about what DNS servers people are using. What if a worldnet customer, say, wants to run a recursive named on his own machine, and handle his own lookups? Then he is, necessarily, going to get the "global" view all the time, even when he's dialed in to Worldnet. So it makes sense for "only reachable from worldnet" stuff to be globally viewable. And what if you're connected to multiple "private" networks, each with their own DNS, at once? Then you've got to pick which private names you want to see, and point at the appropriate DNS ... I realize a lot of organizations split up their DNS views (and because of NAT, some pretty much have to) ... but I've always been of the opinion that a single DNS is the way to go -- it eliminates all the "well, you can only see that name if you're using this DNS" problems. -- Brett
On Sun, Apr 13, 2003 at 03:32:39PM +0200, Michael Hallgren wrote:
So far as I know, www.worldnet.att.net is intended to be
from Worldnet dialups. 204.127.0.0/17 is not advertised to
reachable only the Internet
at large. www.att.net is in 204.127.128.0/17 and is reachable from anywhere.
If so is (which appears to be the case), for what reason is the (global) DNS populated with corresponding data? Somewhat harmless, but fairly easy to clean up (via, for example, DNS configuration views) -- for making things more beautiful.
I've never been a fan of split DNS views, because it makes assumptions about what DNS servers people are using.
OK. Right.
What if a worldnet customer, say, wants to run a recursive named on his own machine, and handle his own lookups? Then he is, necessarily, going to get the "global" view all the time, even when he's dialed in to Worldnet. So it makes sense for "only reachable from worldnet" stuff to be globally viewable.
OK. But I'd guess most people (like myself, from time to time) would rather run a local one forwarding requests to a suitably close (my upstream's) one? (Depends on who you are and how you connect, of course.)
And what if you're connected to multiple "private" networks, each with their own DNS, at once? Then you've got to pick which private names you want to see, and point at the appropriate DNS ...
From memory, you could configure (Bind) with forwarding type zones. This would allow you to recurse locally except for the zones of your "private" choice or forward all but these "private" one's to a global server of your choice.
I realize a lot of organizations split up their DNS views (and because of NAT, some pretty much have to) ... but I've always been of the opinion that a single DNS is the way to go -- it eliminates all the "well, you can only see that name if you're using this DNS" problems.
mh
-- Brett
participants (5)
-
Barney Wolff -
Brett Frankenberger -
E.B. Dreger -
Michael Hallgren -
Sean Donelan