nanog mailing list archives
Re: 192.169.0.0
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 21:26:42 -0700
more grist for your mill: route-server>sho ip route | inc 192.169 B 66.192.169.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.9, 7w0d B 192.169.41.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 17:33:51 B 192.169.38.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h B 192.169.4.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 2w4d B 192.169.39.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 6d16h B 211.192.169.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.9, 2d16h B 192.169.35.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h B 192.169.2.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 2w4d B 192.169.3.0/24 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 2w4d B 192.169.40.0/23 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 17:33:58 B 192.169.36.0/23 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h B 192.169.0.0/16 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 7w0d B 192.169.32.0/22 [200/0] via 168.215.52.71, 6d07h route-server>sho ip int bri Interface IP-Address OK? Method Status Protocol FastEthernet0/0 66.162.47.58 YES manual up up Loopback0 unassigned YES NVRAM up up TWT has a route-server (from traceroute.org's listings) note the age of this route: B 192.169.0.0/16 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 7w0d
i don't get it. this is supposed to be a good thing. am i supposed to just announce the 200+ /8s that cover the net, figuring anyone who has space will announce their longer prefix? tricky stuff sits and waits to backfire on one. so the older and lazier of us tend to play as close to the straight and narrow as we can to get the job done. randy
Current thread:
- 192.169.0.0 Randy Bush (Jun 03)
- Re: 192.169.0.0 Christopher L. Morrow (Jun 03)
- Re: 192.169.0.0 Randy Bush (Jun 03)
- Re: 192.169.0.0 Christopher L. Morrow (Jun 03)
- Re: 192.169.0.0 Jon Lewis (Jun 03)
- Re: 192.169.0.0 Randy Bush (Jun 03)
- Re: 192.169.0.0 Christopher L. Morrow (Jun 03)
- Re: 192.169.0.0 Randy Bush (Jun 03)
- Re: 192.169.0.0 Christopher L. Morrow (Jun 03)
- Re: 192.169.0.0 W.D.McKinney (Jun 03)
- Re: 192.169.0.0 Christopher L. Morrow (Jun 03)
- Re: 192.169.0.0 Randy Bush (Jun 03)
- Re: 192.169.0.0 Christopher L. Morrow (Jun 03)
- Re: 192.169.0.0 Dan Riley (Jun 05)