pst at cisco.com
Thu Mar 17 19:15:13 UTC 1994
From: Dennis Ferguson <dennis at ans.net>
Subject: Re: CIDR deployment
> NET ASN REGIONAL COUNTRY RESULT
> ------------ -------- -------------------- ------------- ---------
> 126.96.36.199 AS372(?) NSN-AMES-AS(?) Japan Unreach
> 188.8.131.52 AS372(?) NSN-AMES-AS(?) Australia Unreach
This is not actually NSI's problem, it is caused by the fact that the
NSFnet has not been configured to accept 192.87.111/22 and hence is
not carrying it. The confusing part is that connectivity through
there to most places still works because the NSFnet has a default
route pointing at Washington2.Dante.net, which runs without route
filters. What this breaks, however, is that since NASA doesn't default
to anyone they won't be able to reach anything which isn't explicitly
announced to them, but we don't have the route to send to them.
Dennis, could you comment about the state of the registries? For the past
week, BARRnet has been attempting to get our CIDR blocks into the
registries, BARRnet says they are advertising our networks to ANS, but
I don't see the route on the other side at the ICM.
At the current state of the art, then, you really need to have the
aggregate configured into the NSFnet database before this will work
well. We should also consider pulling the default route from
the backbone, it is in principle no longer needed and causes no end
of confusion about where the problems are occurring.
In principle, I agree with you 100%, however, I'd like some assurances
that the Merit registries aren't completely AFU since some folks have
already done their withdrawls, and if you've got a problem inside ANS,
they default route may be their only saving grace. On the other side,
I do agree with you that if there is a NSF/Merit/ANS problem, we need to
be able to discover where the problem lies with existing network tools.
Would someone in NSI care to coment about routing? Are you folks carrying
a default to your FIX-W router or what?
More information about the NANOG