GAVRON at ACES.COM
Wed Aug 11 09:25:09 UTC 1999
>I have a client who is now peering with BBN. BBN supplied a /30 as follows:
>18.104.22.168 is their side via a company they purchased called Nap.Net.
>The DNS shows: NChicago2-core0.nap.net
>Thats ok. The other side is the customer colo router and the IP of
>22.214.171.124 shows: chi2-vts.ianet.net
>Now I claim that the domain ianet.net (based on Internic data) is some
>company in WV and has nothing to do with us (ianet is the customer name we
>were assigned by BBN). BBN claims that is this their "standard naming
>convention" for assigning customer interface names.
BBN is confused.
They should change it to a moniker that is acceptable to the customer.
If ianet.net is taken by someone other than the customer,
they have an obligation (sorry, not RFC mandated) to represent
I could go on, but why. BBN still thinks they invented tcp/ip.
>Traceroutes will show up with ianet.net in the path. I claim this is in
>violation of some RFC. Am I wrong? There may be many such PTR records
>within BBN for "customername.net".
More information about the NANOG