nanog mailing list archives
Re: 69/8...this sucks
From: "Jack Bates" <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:42:47 -0600
From: "Andy Dills"
Are you ok with a solution of patiently waiting for some sort of critical mass to occur with each new /8 that gets allocated? Sooner or later, enough content will be in 69/8 (and other commonly filtered /8s) that people will be forced to fix their filters. But is that the only way? And would your answer change if you were one of the first networks to be assigned space in the new range?
I might point out that it can even be worse. The IP addressing I was using belonged to a provider that I'd used for many, many years. They were pulling out and sending customers elsewhere, so I bit the bullet and pulled up the numbers to get my first ARIN assigned addresses. So now I have a /18 that will be at 90% utilization by the end of the month. I can't delay, as I can't request more IP addresses until I release the old networks back to the provider. In essence, I was just forced to screw all my customers. At the next meeting, might someone kindly mention to ARIN that "initial" requests, especially renumbers, should not be issued space that is less than a year off the bogon list? More than anything, this is what has pissed me off. After the renumber, I'll only have 69/8 space, which means all critical services such as my mail, dns, and web servers will all be affected. I hear it now. "I didn't receive mail from so and so!" I check the logs and don't see an established connection to my server. So, is the problem that the far mail server lost the message, the user emailed the wrong place, or my new IP addresses weren't accessible by the far mail server or the dns servers that it uses? In addition, sometimes the problem is that my user just needs to put the crack pipe down. I just don't feel comfortable with this last one anymore, though. I can't be sure it's the crack. It could be the IPs. How do I know? -Jack
Current thread:
- RE: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks), (continued)
- RE: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks) Vivien M. (Mar 12)
- Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks) Andy Dills (Mar 12)
- Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks) Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 12)
- Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks) Owen DeLong (Mar 13)
- Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks) Owen DeLong (Mar 13)
- Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks) Stephen Sprunk (Mar 12)
- Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks) Tim Thorne (Mar 12)
- Re: 69/8...this sucks Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 12)
- Re: 69/8...this sucks Niels Bakker (Mar 13)
- Re: 69/8...this sucks Andy Dills (Mar 11)
- Re: 69/8...this sucks Jack Bates (Mar 11)
- Re: 69/8...this sucks ed (Mar 11)
- Re: 69/8...this sucks Stephen Sprunk (Mar 12)
- Re: 69/8...this sucks Owen DeLong (Mar 11)
- RE: 69/8...this sucks Andy Dills (Mar 11)
- Re: 69/8...this sucks Larry J. Blunk (Mar 11)
- RE: 69/8...this sucks Rick Duff (Mar 11)
- RE: 69/8...this sucks Andy Dills (Mar 11)