126.96.36.199/22 invisible (fwd)
kai at belcom.net
Mon Sep 25 07:42:14 UTC 1995
>Just out of curiosity, why should Internic strap on more asbestos?
>I thought the following would have been warning enough:
> ***PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION PRIOR TO REQUESTING AN
>IP NUMBER FROM THE INTERNIC:
>Due to technical and implementation constraints on the Internet routing
>system and the possibility of routing overload, certain policies may
>need to be enforced by the major transit providers in order to reduce
>the number of globally advertised routes. These potential policies
>may include setting limits on the size of CIDR prefixes added to the
>routing tables, filtering of non-aggregated routes, etc. Therefore,
>addresses obtained directly from the InterNIC (non-provider-based,
>also known as portable) are not guaranteed to be routable on the Internet.
this is from the internet-number-template.txt, which wasn't quite the
template I dealt with (I submitted the isp-ip-template.txt), as the
requirements for the assignment were clearly (and stated to the Internic):
a.) portable, as a change in US domestic attachment point(s) is imminent
b.) multi-homed across continents is foreseeable within 3-4 months
c.) they were specifically named as networks that were in turn to be given
out to our customers, and a provider-dependent IP range was not acceptable
Given these conditions, it was gross neglience if not outright malicious for
the Internic to give us an assignment that, according to obviously previously
aired and announced policy of Sean Doran and others, would not be routed
on major parts of the Internet just days later, a fact that was for sure not
unknown to the IP registry.
That's enough reason to be cautious and strap on more asbestos for the case
I come back to them about this, I believe.
Internet Project Manager, BelCom, Inc.
515 Madison Ave Suite 2100
kai at belcom.net
Ask us about Internet service in the CIS!
Bringing Internet, where there is none
More information about the NANOG