[56582] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Move all 9-1-1 to 8-5-5
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vivien M.)
Tue Mar 11 00:10:29 2003
From: "Vivien M." <vivienm@dyndns.org>
To: "'Sean Donelan'" <sean@donelan.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:09:45 -0500
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0303101932410.4550-100000@clifden.donelan.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On=20
> Behalf Of Sean Donelan
> Sent: March 10, 2003 7:51 PM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Move all 9-1-1 to 8-5-5
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Whenever the North American Numbering Planning Administration=20
> releases a new toll-free prefix (e.g. 1-800, 1-888, 1-877,=20
> 1-866) there is always a lengthy delay for individuals=20
> operating some telephone switches to update their routing=20
> tables. Its common to be in hotels, and find the hotel PBX=20
> doesn't recognize a recent toll-free prefix.
>=20
> So to "fix" this problem, why don't we move all 9-1-1 numbers=20
> to the new toll-free prefix, which will break stuff for=20
> people who don't update their PBX's promptly. When they find=20
> out they can't report a fire in the hotel because their PBX=20
> is blocking the new prefix, then they'll fix the PBX.
You're comparing two different situations, though:
In your case, the people in the hotel that is doing the blocking will be =
the
ones experiencing the problems. They notice that they can't reach
1-8xx-xxx-xxxx, so they call up the hotel management and yell. Hotel
management calls the person in charge of their PBX, and the problem =
would be
fixed. I could be wrong (hey, I'm in the DNS business, not the PSTN), =
but I
can't imagine the 1-8xx number calling the hotel and getting the =
impression
that the 1-8xx number's provider has problems...
In the 69.0.0.0/8 case, though, the problem is bidirectional. You have
people whose ISP/firewall/etc blocks access to 69.0.0.0/8 - presumably, =
if
they can't reach some box on 69.0.0.0, they'll yell at their ISP (and, =
most
likely, at the operator of the thing they're trying to reach, too, but =
said
operator can tell them to yell at their ISP). But, you also have people =
on
69.0.0.0 who aren't able to reach other sites due to filtering on the =
other
end, and those people are likely to yell at their ISP and blame their =
ISP
for something the ISP can't fix.
That second situation, I think, is the situation that this thread is =
about,
and your hotel analogy doesn't address that.
With the hotel analogy, basically, the people affected are the ones who =
have
the relationship with the operator of the broken piece of hardware, not =
the
ones with the 1-8xx number (though, if you want to be picky, you could =
argue
they might lose a bit of business to this).
With the 69.x.x.x situation, the people affected are the ones with the =
69 IP
space, and they don't have a relationship with whoever has the =
misconfigured
hardware.=20
Maybe moving the GTLD servers would be overkill... But certainly, the =
idea
of asking Google or Yahoo to move seems like a good one. If people can't
reach Google or Yahoo, they'll make their ISP look into the issue, and =
fix
their filters.=20
A random comment now I have been dragged into this thread: this issue is =
not
new with 69.0.0.0/8. When we first got a block from 66.* from an ISP =
about
two years ago, we had problems too with various people (mostly end =
users,
though, I think) firewalling 66.*, and yet ARIN had been assigning 66.*
blocks for probably a year or so before we got that IP space. =
Fortunately
for us, though, most problems seemed to be people who wanted to reach us =
not
being able to, and not us not being able to reach sites we wanted to =
talk
to. Still, I suspect the Linux Firewall HOWTO was in large part =
responsible
for the problems we had...=20
Vivien
--=20
Vivien M.
vivienm@dyndns.org
Assistant System Administrator
Dynamic DNS Network Services
http://www.dyndns.org/=20
