[179265] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Small IX IP Blocks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Hargrave)
Sun Apr 5 11:41:40 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Will Hargrave <will@harg.net>
In-Reply-To: <274801d06f93$dafe02e0$90fa08a0$@paulstewart.org>
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 08:39:37 -0700
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 5 Apr 2015, at 04:29, Paul Stewart <paul@paulstewart.org> wrote:
> I worked for a provider until recently that happened to get an IP =
assignment
> at an IXP that was transitioning from /25 to /24. It was painful =
chasing
> down peers to get them to change their netmask just so we could =
connect.
> This went on for several months dealing with the peering/network =
contacts of
> whom many of them didn't know the mask had changed in the first place.
If you had problems peering because other participants have the wrong =
netmask, the IXP is not being operated correctly. It=92s such a very bad =
thing to have the incorrect netmask on interfaces (think, =
more-specifics, route leaks, etc) that the IXP should manage the netmask =
change process itself - in fact to the point of disconnecting networks =
who do not configure it correctly.
When we renumbered LONAP from /24 to /22, we had to change netblocks =
too. I can=92t recall if we had any netmask problems too but it seems =
perfectly possible if lazy people just went %s/193.203.5/5.57.80/g. So =
we did check for that - it=92s quite a simple task.
=46rom an IXP user point of view, the change was easier for J users, but =
we built a config validator/renumbererer for C IOS users to help them =
out. (=91paste your config in this webform=92 =91examine the output=92 =
sort of thing)
Will=
