[72282] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Announcing a /19 from a /16
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Hallgren)
Mon Jul 5 17:49:44 2004
From: "Michael Hallgren" <m.hallgren@free.fr>
To: "'Eric Pylko'" <eric@infinitenetworks.us>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 23:49:09 +0200
In-Reply-To: <000e01c462ca$f7dc6af0$0117a8c0@d800>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
=20
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] De=20
> la part de Eric Pylko
> Envoy=E9 : lundi 5 juillet 2004 22:02
> =C0 : nanog@merit.edu
> Objet : Announcing a /19 from a /16
>=20
>=20
> Hi-
>=20
> I'm working on a project within a large corporation and asked=20
> their network folks about getting a /19 from one of their=20
> /16s. I wanted it to avoid NAT and any possible overlapping=20
> from using RFC1918 addresses. This project gets connected to=20
> the internet at different times throughout the year at=20
> different locations through different ISPs. I would announce=20
> the /19 for a short period of time, maybe a month or so.
>=20
> The response I got back was that this was impossible since=20
> ISPs require an announcement of the /16 the /19 would come=20
> from.=20
Maybe one of the (fairly rare, from what I see) actors that ingress =
filter
(or takes into account those small few that does) by allocation? (What
prefixes are yopu talking about?)
mh
> I have done work with ISPs before (and have read the=20
> NANOG list for many years) but haven't heard of such a=20
> requirement nor can I find any standards that indicate the same thing.
>=20
> Does anyone have requirements of a /19 announcement requires=20
> the /16 to be there as well? The company has plenty of /16s=20
> that it uses internally that are not being announced on the=20
> Internet at all.
>=20
> Thanks-
>=20
> -Eric
>=20
>=20
>=20
