[164162] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Paetec PI space?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jun 27 21:28:25 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <57726.1372282826@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 20:26:35 -0500
To: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:40 PM, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:06:10 -0400, "Justin M. Streiner" said:
>>> We have a customer who was assigned some PI IPv4 space by Paetec =
back in
>>> mid-90's and who has continued to announce the blocks, even though =
their
>>> relationship with Paetec ended a long time ago.
>>>=20
>>> Is this a common situation? Does the customer risk having that space
>>> reclaimed by Paetec at some point, or is it safe to assume they will
>>> continue to be able to route trouble-free for years to come?
>>=20
>> They should plan to renumber out of that space in the very near =
future.
>=20
> This is an excellent time to plan to renumber into 2001:: if they =
haven't
> such plans already. :)
Well, somewhere in 2000::/3, anyway=85 It might be somewhere within any =
of the following blocks: 2001:400::/23, 2001:1800::/23, 2001:4800::/23, =
2600::/12, or 2610::/23, 2620::/23.
All of which have been delegated to ARIN by IANA.
As to the PI/PA question=85 There were PI blocks issued by LIRs (ISPs) =
in the years after the initial implementation of CIDR and before (and =
possibly for some time after) the creation of ARIN. My blocks =
192.159.10.0/24 and 192.124.40.0/23 are examples of such blocks which =
were originally issued to me by Netcom and PSI, respectively. They are =
now correctly documented as "Direct Assignments" in the ARIN database =
and covered by LRSA (which I now regret given the recent fee =
restructuring).
Owen
