SORBs
Alex Rubenstein
alex at nac.net
Wed Jul 6 15:30:45 UTC 2005
Perhaps the networks are disconnected? Perhaps there is insufficient
bandwidth between the cities to carry inter-city traffic?
Sounds somewhat familiar to
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2004_5.html
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
> Sanfilippo, Ted wrote:
>> It belonged to some Canadian ISP, I believe it was a cable company.
>> Regarding the aggregation/deaggregation mess. This is due to the fact
>> that ARIN is rather strict with IP assignements and how we route
>> internally. Because ARIN wants us to use 80% of our ip blocks, before we
>> can request
>> new assignments from them we have to dole out addresses in /22's to each
>> city we have, in order to use them up appropriately. Its been a bit of a
>> nightmare trying to meet ARIN's policies and also try to meet the
>> Internet Communities policies. Believe me, I would much rather advertise
>> a /16 prefix out to the Internet, rather then a /22. We have not been
>> able to accommodate this unfortunately.
>
> Err... Why do you say you need to advertise a /22 for each city rather
> than the /16 for your entire network? What's inside your network and
> how you distribute your addresses there is not of concern for anyone
> outside of your network. Why don't you advertise the /16 via BGP and
> then let the IGP handle the /22 distribution to each city?
>
>
--
Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex at nac.net, latency, Al Reuben
Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net
More information about the NANOG
mailing list