CIDR deployment

Elise Gerich epg
Thu Mar 17 21:30:24 UTC 1994


Paul and Dennis,

The routing database has consistent and reliable information.  There are
two reports available on nic.merit.edu:nsfnet/announced.networks which
list classless nets in the routing database.  The file names are:
nets.non-classful   and   nets.nestings.

Like everyone who is dealing with CIDR/BGP4 we are learning what works and
what doesn't.  BARRNET submitted the request and in doing a routine routing
check we discovered that the aggregate and the previously registered
component networks had inconsistent policies. That delayed the configuration
of the aggregate and caused us to reevaluate the process for handling these
types of inconsistencies.

If you all want to check to see if there are any inconsistencies between
classful nets and the classless net that should be configured in the NSFNET
database, you can use a tool that Merit has implemented.  Issue the command:

whois -h prdb.merit.edu 'aggchk <agg>'

                   --Elise

> 
> Paul,
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I haven't been paying nearly enough attention to the input end of the
> registration process (I have a number of people annoyed with me about
> this) but I know that the configuration files which come out the output
> end seem to have all the right stuff.  I know the BARRnet aggregates
> didn't get configured due to some misunderstanding which I hope is
> exceptional, if they're not in tomorrow I'll configure them by hand.
> I know of no endemic problems at all.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Yes, this is exactly my problem with the default.  I would really like
> to get remaining bugs out of ANS' network and the routing with our
> neighbours as soon as possible, but it has progressed to the point where
> the only way I have to do this is to listen for the screams of people
> who might be affected by them.  If the default route is "fixing" some
> people's problems (and I suspect it may be since there have been way
> too few screams given the magnitude of the change that was just made)
> then we aren't fixing the problems.  I'd much rather hear some screaming
> at this point.
> 
> Dennis
> 






More information about the NANOG mailing list