On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > ARIN will begin allocating IP address space from 74.0.0.0 /8 and 75.0.0.0
> > /8 within the next 2 weeks. ARIN was issued 74 /8, 75 /8, and 76 /8 by the
> > IANA on June 17, 2005.
>
> If this isn't just a pingable addres
>
>
> Hi, NANOGers.
>
> ] due to filtering issues at the hosting provider of the cymru
> ] pingable, the data plane story is not as sanguine. i am told
> ] it will not be fixed until the weekend.
>
> That's not quite correct. :) One of our transit providers had some
> outdated filters
We a
Hi, NANOGers.
] due to filtering issues at the hosting provider of the cymru
] pingable, the data plane story is not as sanguine. i am told
] it will not be fixed until the weekend.
That's not quite correct. :) One of our transit providers had some
outdated filters, and these have now been up
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Manish Karir wrote:
Thanks!
I don't understand something. Quoting from your page:
"Based on the above data, we can see that both these prefixes were being
(probably incorrectly) announced by AS9802 (CHINA-21VIANET 21vianet(China)
Inc.) prior to Aug 30, at which time they wit
thanks for the routing visibility update.
due to filtering issues at the hosting provider of the cymru
pingable, the data plane story is not as sanguine. i am told
it will not be fixed until the weekend.
this means that, if you are having problems pinging the target,
wait until next week to spe
ARIN to allocate from 74/8 & 75/8
if it's useful, i'd be happy to report what percentage of my peers
have/don't have routes to these prefixes.
I'd be interested.=20
Best,
-
>
> > i.e. is there a pingable address in each, as has been
> > discussed here just a few times?
>
> ping is ok, but routing table entry existence seems better. ping can
> fail for lots of reasons and what we're really testing is routing, not
> icmp end-to-end, right?
There's a difference betwe
Hi, NANOGers.
] the suspicion is that cymru has filters! [0]
Au contraire! The device is completely unfiltered. How crazy of
me. ;)
Randy, I'm debugging the legitimate issues you share with me now.
Stay tuned!
Folks who trip across anomolies and the like should contact us at
[EMAIL PROTECT
Hi, NANOGers.
] this has probably already been thought-out, but outbound reachability
] testing *from* the address block to a representative spread of
] addressing makes much more sense and would be much more indicative of
] forwarding (versus routing) problems, and would do so with some method
]
Hi, Randy.
] but, as you seem to understand, that's only half the story. luckily,
] the other, more useful, half is easily testable if arin/cymru would
] just follow the long-discussed path.
We couldn't agree more! That's why we stood up the following three
pingable IP addresses prior to annou
Todd,
On Tue, 20 September 2005 16:49:20 -0400, Todd Underwood wrote:
[..]
> look in the routing tables of routeviews/ripe/cymru/renesys peers?
Speaking of experience there is a difference potentially
between rfc1918/bogus/unallocated filters on an interface
that likely do reference a prefix lis
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Lewis writ
es:
>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
>>> testing *from* the address block to a representative spread of
>>> addressing makes much more sense and would be much more indicative of
>>> forwarding (versus routing) problems, and would do s
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
testing *from* the address block to a representative spread of
addressing makes much more sense and would be much more indicative of
forwarding (versus routing) problems, and would do so with some method
It's a good idea, but of course that requi
> Suffice it to say that there are a myriad of reasons these new
> allocations could seem 'broken' to folks.
tell me about it. i am having fun testing from various (we believe
to be) *unfiltered* places, and some work and some don't. e.g. we
can ping from the westin (a class B going out to spri
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> as i said privately to someone, a few problems
> o many of a large complex enterprise's sources from which it may
> be desirable to test may be in 1918 space.
Don't forget the enterprises that number themselves out of 'unallocated'
space :) which
>> this has probably already been thought-out, but outbound reachability
>> testing *from* the address block to a representative spread of
>> addressing makes much more sense and would be much more indicative of
>> forwarding (versus routing) problems, and would do so with some method
>> and stati
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd Underwood writes:
>this has probably already been thought-out, but outbound reachability
>testing *from* the address block to a representative spread of
>addressing makes much more sense and would be much more indicative of
>forwarding (versus routing) problem
> that willy-nilly pinging from random places won't really help much,
> as is probably obvious. it can identify gross unreachability problems
> but it cannot give a clear picture of unreachability across all of
> routed space
yep.
but, for each operator who wants to be responsible, it lets us
e
May be? Is.
Routing and forwarding _is_ a known policy issue in virtually
all ASNs.
- ferg
-- Todd Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...] routing and firewalling may be orthogonal.
obviously, without routing there is no forwarding and *many* people
filtered announcements within 69/8. i ac
> > > route-views and ris provide pretty good views of route propagation.
> > >
> > > but, as you seem to understand, that's only half the story. luckily,
> > > the other, more useful, half is easily testable if arin/cymru would
> > > just follow the long-discussed path.
yep, that's clear. rou
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> > 74.63.0.0/20
> > 75.127.0.0/20
> > 76.191.0.0/20
>
> and how is that testing being done? how do we test that we can reach
> the prefixes? i.e. is there a pingable address in each, as has been
> discussed here just a few times?
I did get a private resp
>> if it's useful, i'd be happy to report what percentage of my peers
>> have/don't have routes to these prefixes.
route-views and ris provide pretty good views of route propagation.
but, as you seem to understand, that's only half the story. luckily,
the other, more useful, half is easily test
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Todd Underwood wrote:
>
> randy, all,
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 10:37:13AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > Connectivity testing is currently being done by Team Cymru on the
> > > following
> > > three /20s (one from each /8). All of these test allocations originate
> > >
randy, all,
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 10:37:13AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Connectivity testing is currently being done by Team Cymru on the following
> > three /20s (one from each /8). All of these test allocations originate with
> > AS3.
> >
> > 74.63.0.0/20
> > 75.127.0.0/20
> > 76.191.
> Connectivity testing is currently being done by Team Cymru on the following
> three /20s (one from each /8). All of these test allocations originate with
> AS3.
>
> 74.63.0.0/20
> 75.127.0.0/20
> 76.191.0.0/20
and how is that testing being done? how do we test that we can reach
the prefi
Apologies for duplicate messages.
ARIN will begin allocating IP address space from 74.0.0.0 /8 and 75.0.0.0
/8 within the next 2 weeks. ARIN was issued 74 /8, 75 /8, and 76 /8 by the
IANA on June 17, 2005.
Connectivity testing is currently being done by Team Cymru on the following
three /20s
26 matches
Mail list logo
