nor that AboveNet would listen to the space from other providers.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Jeff Aitken wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:45:59PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> > Once upon a time, AboveNet did not permit anyone to announce their IP
> > space under any condition. I wonder
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:45:59PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> Once upon a time, AboveNet did not permit anyone to announce their IP
> space under any condition. I wonder if this is still the case.
It is not. Customers may announce MFN-assigned space to other
upstreams. Obviously th
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 07:00:28AM -0700, Sean M. Doran wrote:
> | UUNet suggested that any problems encountered
> | as a result of this allocation could probably solved by e-mailing
> | any NSP whose traffic interchange with us might be negatively
> | affected (unlikely, to be sure, but still...
| With enough badgering most providers will accept a /24 announcement of PA
| space.
With a token offer to make a payment of, say, 150 dollars, you will
save yourself considerable badgering time and effort. Of course,
if time isn't money, or you don't believe in negotiations (think ebay...),
| UUNet suggested that any problems encountered
| as a result of this allocation could probably solved by e-mailing
| any NSP whose traffic interchange with us might be negatively
| affected (unlikely, to be sure, but still...), and would then
| change their filter (I'm unconvinced of this scenar
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 07:44:31AM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> > I don't exactly anticipate this ever happening. My observation is
> > that the scaling will happen in the router area, i.e. as more and
> > more smaller blocks get announced out of the class A/class B space,
> > the ability of
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:35:15PM -0700, Sharif Torpis wrote:
>
> Some folks phrase it the way you did. Others phrase it that Exodus
> has stringent routing policies that prevent customers from doing
> silly things with Exodus IP space rather than obtaining their own PI
> space. Such silly thin
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002, Henry Yen wrote:
> I don't exactly anticipate this ever happening. My observation is
> that the scaling will happen in the router area, i.e. as more and
> more smaller blocks get announced out of the class A/class B space,
> the ability of routers to hold more routes will
Some folks phrase it the way you did. Others phrase it that Exodus
has stringent routing policies that prevent customers from doing
silly things with Exodus IP space rather than obtaining their own PI
space. Such silly things are detrimental to the stability of one's
backbone. Permitting such si
I'm listening intently, here.
I have an even smaller block from UUnet (63.107.133.0/24) in what ARIN
declares to be a /20 CIDR block, and I'm having the devil of a time getting
Level3 (my other ) to actually announce this route. UUnet has
time and again told me that they need do nothing for
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:34:44AM -0500, Borchers, Mark wrote:
> http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html#ipv4issued2002
The CIDR section is the part you're referring to?
http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html#cidr
which indicates /20.
> Unfortunately, this doesn't help in your case.
7;
Subject: RE: [Q] BGP filtering policies
If you'll look at this pointer to one of ARIN's pages, it lists
the minimum allocation size for each CIDR block that IANA has
given ARIN to manage. From what I've seen, most providers accept
at least up to the prefix length that the RIR&#
If you'll look at this pointer to one of ARIN's pages, it lists
the minimum allocation size for each CIDR block that IANA has
given ARIN to manage. From what I've seen, most providers accept
at least up to the prefix length that the RIR's are using, if not
longer.
http://www.arin.net/statistics
13 matches
Mail list logo
