nanog mailing list archives
Re: verio arrogance
From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph () istop com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:27:50 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:And your suggestion has technical deficiencies as well. I have a leased line between Toronto and Ottawa, so I want to announce my Ottawa IPs to my Toronto transit provider as well as an Ottawa transit provider. And the reverse for the Toronto IPs. My understand is trying to punch holes in PA space is much more difficult than de-aggregating ARIN PI space.I can't really see why, as long as the provider has punched the appropriate hole for your aggregate in their filters. More specific routes always win out. Or am I missing your point?
If the block isn't assigned to you by ARIN, I've encountered cases where network operators request an LOA before accepting the announcement, even if there is an RADB entry for it. As well, if you have PA space and your upstream allocates you a 66.x for example, then you're back to square one. -Ralph
Current thread:
- Re: verio arrogance, (continued)
- Re: verio arrogance Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 26)
- Re: verio arrogance Ralph Doncaster (Jul 27)
- Re: istop arrogance Paul Schultz (Jul 27)
- Re: istop arrogance Ralph Doncaster (Jul 27)
- Re: istop arrogance Paul Schultz (Jul 27)
- Re: istop arrogance Ralph Doncaster (Jul 27)
- Re: istop arrogance Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 27)
- Re: istop arrogance Ralph Doncaster (Jul 27)
- Re: verio arrogance up (Jul 18)
- Re: verio arrogance Ralph Doncaster (Jul 18)
- RE: verio arrogance Daniel Golding (Jul 18)
- Re: verio arrogance Peter E. Fry (Jul 18)
- Re: verio arrogance Kai Schlichting (Jul 18)
- RE: verio arrogance Phil Rosenthal (Jul 18)