[158901] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Advisory =?utf-8?B?4oCUIEQtcm9v?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Fri Dec 14 16:26:56 2012
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:25:16 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Joe Antkowiak <antkojm1@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACQ8_wrRFdryCuti6h-Za1oGyv0QXzm=A52=f7twUGuGD_oh=A@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 03:10:44PM -0600, Joe Antkowiak wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Jason Castonguay <castongj@umd.edu> wrote:
>
> > The old address, which is in the middle of UMD's network, is going to be
> > black-holed once the change is over. Nothing will be on that IP once we
> > move the root off. The rest of UMD's network is staying put. This move
> > is part of UMD's commitment to improve the service, so we can support
> > DNS anycast.
> >
> >
> Just a quick question....if the old block is going to be black-holed but
> kept allocated...why does it need to be changed in the first place, or why
> does the existing have to be disabled? (just have both addresses
> active/responding?)
>
> Forgive me if I'm missing something.
because you would not accept a /30 cutout of the UMD /16 coming
from some random IX in Singapore. (see Joe Ableys post earlier today
on why legacy nodes are / have renumbered.)
/bill
