No sooner do I hit send than do I get a note from UUnet that they have fixed the problem.
Thanks to UUnet and sorry to the list. -mm- On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 05:17:38PM -0500, Mark E. Mallett wrote: > Well, via UUnet. > > Summary: > > We (AS3578) are announcing a netblock 198.175.254.0/24 > > A bogus announcement via UUnet from a UUnet customer is interfering > with this. Is somebody at UUnet able to cut through some red tape and > fix it? It's easy to verify that the announcement from AS6921 does > not produce a working route, and that the owner of the netblock does > not want it announced there. I would like UUnet to block the bogus > announcement from its customer. > > > Reasonably gory detail: > > That netblock was previously hooked up via InternetConnect.net (AS6921) > which has recently been bought at bankruptcy court by Covad. > > Internetconnect.net continues to announce the netblock to UUnet. > There is nobody left at InternetConnect to respond to a request to > stop announcing it. The announcement from AS6921 is interfering with > our valid announcent. It's fairly easy to demonstrate that the > 701->6921 path for this netblock does not work. > > The owner of the netblock has contacted UUnet and asked them to stop > accepting the announcement. Mostly he has gotten nowhere; the best > response he has been able to get is that the contract will expire in a > few months and the announcement will expire at that time. > > I have contacted UUnet and have been told to take it up with my > upstreams 'cuz they won't deal directly with me. They also said to > have a nice day. > > I contacted my upstream of choice (Genuity) who said they can't talk > to UUNet on my behalf because it's not their business (despite the fact > that the announcement out of UUnet is interfering with the valid > announcement out of Genuity). All around it's a pretty good gridlock > system. > > Also: in the theory that the UUNet filters towards their customer may > be driven off the RADB I've attempted to remove the old RADB entry for > that netblock. The maintainer for that entry is also defunct so I > requested a manual deletion; while I have hopes of that eventually > taking place, I guess the wheels turn slowly at the RADB, or maybe they > are waiting for the April deadbeat removal. > > > Complete detail: > > [ nobody wants that ] > > -mm- -- Mark E. Mallett | http://www.mv.com/users/mem/ MV Communications, Inc. | http://www.mv.com/ NH Internet Access since 1991 | (603) 629-0000 / FAX: 629-0049