CIDR deployment

Dennis Ferguson dennis at
Thu Mar 17 19:56:11 UTC 1994


> 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.


More information about the NANOG mailing list