InterNIC - We put the "I" in incompetent.

Randy Bush randy at psg.com
Sun Mar 14 20:30:25 UTC 1999


>>>>>    NS1.ENTERZONE.NET            209.41.244.5
>>>>>    NS2.ENTERZONE.NET            209.41.244.6
>>>> Hmm... same subnet...
>>> Michael, you should know better than that.  I do not see a subnet mask on
>>> these IP addresses.  There is nothing stopping a Network Operator from
>>> making these /32s and putting them on different networks.
>> Nothing except community consensus that it is a *BAD* thing to pollute the
>> global routing table with lots of long prefixes.
> I am capable of putting /32s in my network an announcing the aggregate.  We
> did this at Priori, Michael.  Justin programmed each loopback as a /32 out
> of the same /24, so we had x.x.x.1 on the west coast and x.x.x.2 on the
> east coast, but still only announced the /18.


traceroute to 209.41.244.5 (209.41.244.5), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  gw.44IETF.MR.Net (209.32.95.254)  14.248 ms  5.702 ms  5.449 ms
 2  mrnet-IETF-2.UPP.MR.Net (137.192.170.93)  14.255 ms  12.399 ms  7.584 ms
 3  core1.UPP.MR.Net (204.220.31.254)  13.795 ms  8.132 ms  8.211 ms
 4  aads.fnsi.net (198.32.130.64)  25.371 ms  25.189 ms  26.577 ms
 5  core1-hssi101.Columbus.fnsi.net (209.115.127.225)  35.778 ms  30.226 ms  33.013 ms
 6  ENTERZONE.Columbus.fnsi.net (209.115.127.22)  31.121 ms  30.784 ms  30.580 ms
 7  NS1.ENTERZONE.NET (209.41.244.5)  34.295 ms  30.942 ms  30.624 ms


roam.psg.com:/usr/home/randy> traceroute 209.41.244.6
traceroute to 209.41.244.6 (209.41.244.6), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  gw.44IETF.MR.Net (209.32.95.254)  9.571 ms  5.451 ms  5.396 ms
 2  mrnet-IETF-2.UPP.MR.Net (137.192.170.93)  9.071 ms  7.631 ms  7.817 ms
 3  core1.UPP.MR.Net (204.220.31.254)  9.045 ms  8.343 ms  8.340 ms
 4  aads.fnsi.net (198.32.130.64)  24.862 ms  23.892 ms  26.196 ms
 5  core1-hssi101.Columbus.fnsi.net (209.115.127.225)  31.046 ms  29.786 ms  31.106 ms
 6  ENTERZONE.Columbus.fnsi.net (209.115.127.22)  30.355 ms  31.590 ms  32.866 ms
 7  NS2.ENTERZONE.NET (209.41.244.6)  32.493 ms  30.425 ms  31.418 ms




More information about the NANOG mailing list