RE: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8...

["Todd A. Blank" <todd () ipoutlet com>]

Some of this is beginning to clear up.  The Cable and Wireless stuff
seems to be working now.

Still, when we source from the 69.0.0.0/8 CIDR, traffic can't go (http)
to the following destinations:

www.ocas.com
www.lavalife.com
www.indofilms.com

The first two are on AT&T and AT&T Canada.  The last one is on
allegiance internet.

Any insight would be much appreciated.  We are sure this is affecting
access to other destinations when using 69.0.0.0/8 as a source - we just
haven't found them all yet...

Thanks,

Todd A. Blank
614.207.5853





-----Original Message-----
From: Martin J. Levy [mailto:mahtin () mahtin com] 
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 2:17 PM
To: Todd A. Blank; jfeger () feger net
Cc: nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8...

Todd,

If this helps.  Do something like the following...

        telnet route-views.oregon-ix.net > /tmp/file
         term len 0
         sh ip bgp 69.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 l
         quit

        cut -c62-2000 < /tmp/file | awk '{print $1}' | sort -n | uniq -c
| more

...your commands will vary.

You will see plenty of routes within 69/8.

A closer look with show that around 121 routes are seen in the 69/8
range via most of the feeds into Oregon.  There is one big exception...

        69.4.64.0/20

... it shows up via AS-2548 (Digex) and the other feeds, but it's the
only route within 69/8 that shows up via AS-2548.  This is valuable
information.

It does not mean there is filtering within AS-2548, but I would
recommend you contact them to further this investigation.

BTW:  This is exactly what Oregon is great for!  It shows up issues like
this with ease.  Thanks!

Martin

---------------------------
At 01:47 PM 12/2/2002 -0500, Todd A. Blank wrote:

> Thanks for the reply, James.
>
> I wish I could tell you the answer.  We see traffic passing through
some
> of the routers (transit), but on each network, or their downstreams
> there seem to be different devices filtering.  Sometimes it is a border
> or peering router.  In other cases, it has been access devices, such as
> firewalls.
>
> One we resolved this morning (with some help from the good folks at
> ARIN) was a downstream provider from one of these transit providers
that
> was filtering in their devices as well.
>
> I am just trying to raise general awareness that the 69.0.0.0/8 block
is
> assigned and out there in use, and to get people to re-examine their
> filters, access lists, etc.
>
> You help and response is appreciated.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Todd A. Blank
> 614.207.5853
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Feger, James [mailto:jfeger () feger net] 
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 1:35 PM
> To: Todd A. Blank
> Subject: Re: Operational Issues with 69.0.0.0/8...
>
> When you say 'Networks involved' do you mean those providers are
> blocking
> the traffic, or you see these networks in the transit?
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
>
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Todd A. Blank wrote:
>
> > To all concerned:
> >  
> > We have been assigned a CIDR of 69.1.192.0/19.
> >  
> > We have had numerous problems getting traffic through to various
> destinations.
> >  
> > We are finding that many routers are still filtering 69.0.0.0/8.
> >  
> > This block used to be restricted, but was assigned by IANA to ARIN in
> August of 2002.
> >  
> > If anyone is still filtering this block in their routers, please
> remove the filters!
> >  
> > Here are some of the destinations that are not reachable if your
> source is anywhere in the 69.0.0.0/8 CIDR:
> >  
> > www.cplink2.com
> > www.ocas.com
> > www.indofilms.com
> > www.lavalife.com
> >  
> >  
> > Some of the Networks involved are Cable and Wireless, Allegiance
> Internet and AT&T.
> >  
> > Thank you,
> >  
> > Todd A. Blank
> > IPOutlet LLC
> > 614.207.5853