[139121] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using Region-X assigned IP space in Region-Y?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Sun Mar 27 14:43:54 2011
To: Jima <nanog@jima.tk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 27 Mar 2011 12:54:52 CDT."
<4D8F79EC.1080805@jima.tk>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:42:35 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1301251355_49140P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 12:54:52 CDT, Jima said:
> On 3/27/2011 12:10 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
> > On 3/27/11 8:19 AM, "Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu"<Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> There's only one question to be asked - will the (possibly new) upstream
> >> of the moved datacenter announce the route for the /24 or not?
> >
> > Why would the new upstream refuse to announce the /24 assuming he has the
> > correct information for his route objects and visible through the RIR
> > database.
>
> Some transit providers dislike announcing smaller networks, and thus
> have lower limits.
Which is why I said you need to find a willing upstream. And yes, if Mark
moving into a monopoly area, he'll probably have to do it the way the monopoly
wants it done.
--==_Exmh_1301251355_49140P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFNj4UbcC3lWbTT17ARAsJXAKCTCOocVamGYbl1qqmGWoDoQSjGsQCeMIDh
uWlFnL1JC5iPguEw9DVKK94=
=R9TB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1301251355_49140P--
