[43291] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Gorgon's Knot. Was: Re: Verio Peering Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff Mcadams)
Wed Oct 3 12:26:26 2001
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 12:25:50 -0400
From: Jeff Mcadams <jeffm@iglou.com>
To: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20011003122549.A27931@iglou.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0110031406360.5397-100000@www.everquick.net>; from eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net on Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 02:42:12PM +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Also sprach E.B. Dreger
>FWIW, we advert three routes: /22, /22, /23. A couple of /24s will be
>announced soon. Like Jeff, we'd gladly renumber, into a single /20 in
>our case. When we're through getting beaten up by ARIN and get a PI
>/20, we'll do just that. In the mean time, we'll keep advertising 3x
>as many routes as we should.
*IF* you get a /20. I don't know how anal ARIN is about it, but looking
at the rough numbers you posted, I'm not sure you technically qualify.
I could be wrong...at a remote pop at the moment waiting for cisco TAC
to call me back at the moment, so can't double-check.
Our experience was that we had a couple of /24's, a couple of /23's and
a /20. ARIN gave us another /20 without any requirements to renumber
out of any of our existing blocks (which, to be quite honest, we were
expecting to have to do). If they had given us a /19, we'd have been
fine (not looking *forward* to the process of renumbering, but perfectly
willing to do so) with the process of renumbering out of one or more of
our older blocks.
Again, not only is the incentive to renumber into more aggregatable
blocks not there, there's actually a *dis*incentive to do so.
--
Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com
Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848
IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
