[urgent assistance] 188.8.131.52/16 - Disappeared...
kamtha at ak-labs.net
Mon May 14 00:34:10 UTC 2007
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 06:35:15PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 12-May-2007, at 06:34, Fergie wrote:
> >Just as a follow-up to this:
> >The situation still exists: 184.108.40.206/16 is still missing in
> >action in the routing system, and more importantly, so are
> >EP.net's DNS servers. :-(
> I'm not sure that 220.127.116.11/16 was ever advertised. EP.NET runs a
> registry for exchange points and other people that Bill feels like
> helping out and assigns from that number range; since the /16 covers
> many varied applications and organisations all over the planet, it
> seems unlikely that a /16 would do anything useful.
I think you are correct. While i still don't see this /16 in my
routing tables, I can now reach both dot. and flag.
> I have no problems reaching FLAG.EP.NET (18.104.22.168), DOT.EP.NET
> (22.214.171.124), both of which live in subnets numbered from
> 126.96.36.199/16 and administered by EP.NET directly.
I can assure that this wasnt the case since this past friday.
> A quick RIS query suggests that none of the RIS probes have ever seen
> an advertisement 188.8.131.52/16.
> >So, if Bill magically re-appears, or if anyone else can provide any
> >insight or assistance, please contact ops-staff at mail-abuse.org.
> There are a number of prominent DNS servers numbered within
> 184.108.40.206/16; however, for various reasons a noticeable number of
> network operators take the position that all routes within that /16
> are necessarily bogons, since it was originally designated for use in
> numbering exchange-point fabrics and those blocks ought properly not
> be advertised.
> I take no philosophical position on any of that (it's far too sunny
> and verdant here to form that kind of opinion here this afternoon),
> and in a similar vein apologies for any historical inaccuracies I may
> have inferred above. However, from a purely operational perspective,
> you may want to check that the specific subnets of 220.127.116.11/16 that
> you are interested in have not been filtered by your transit providers.
that's definately not the issue. Something is working now that didnt
previously. Someone at isi fixed something and did'nt bother to either
acknowledge, and report the problem. But that's probably
too much to expect.
More information about the NANOG