Ehud Gavron 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:

> is their side via a company they purchased called Nap.Net.
>The DNS shows:

>Thats ok.  The other side is the customer colo router and the IP of
> shows:

>Now I claim that the domain (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 is taken by someone other than the customer,
	they have an obligation (sorry, not RFC mandated) to represent
	it correctly.

	I could go on, but why. BBN still thinks they invented tcp/ip.


>Traceroutes will show up with 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 "".


More information about the NANOG mailing list