192.169.0.0

Sat Jun 4 05:54:40 UTC 2005

Christopher L. Morrow wrote:

>On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>more grist for your mill:
>>>
>>>TWT has a route-server (from traceroute.org's listings) note the age of
>>>this route:
>>>B    192.169.0.0/16 [200/0] via 168.215.52.102, 7w0d
>>>      
>>>
>>i don't get it.  this is supposed to be a good thing.
>>
>>am i supposed to just announce the 200+ /8s that cover the
>>net, figuring anyone who has space will announce their
>>longer prefix?
>>
>>tricky stuff sits and waits to backfire on one.  so the
>>older and lazier of us tend to play as close to the
>>straight and narrow as we can to get the job done.
>>    
>>
>
>So, I'm not condoning this at all, just offering a possible explanation...
>As was explained at one time on this list I think? Some folks will, in
>favor of holding a complete 150k+ routes, hold large enough covering
>routes internally and not most of the the smaller routes to save memory.
>Something like 'almost default'... it confused me and it caused me some
>pain so it seems like a bad thing. This seems to re-enforce that idea. (to
>me atleast).
>
>Perhaps someone will fix it? Where is the route leaking from TWTC in the
>first place? A customer or ? Apparently only 14608 sees it at route-views?
>Is alaska fiberstar listening tonight? a random sample of routerservers
>off traceroute.org shows no one else with this route...
>
>
>  
>

As you can see from the website http://www.alaskafiberstar.com they 
don't have any IP operations info available.
My guess is that they out-sourced IP operations as they filed bankruptcy 
in 2001. figures

Dee