[82048] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SORBs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Rubenstein)
Fri Jul 8 15:41:29 2005
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:30:45 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
From: Alex Rubenstein <alex@nac.net>
To: Andre Oppermann <nanog-list@nrg4u.com>
Cc: "Sanfilippo, Ted" <Ted.Sanfilippo@PaeTec.com>,
Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <42CBF642.2020404@nrg4u.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Perhaps the networks are disconnected? Perhaps there is insufficient
bandwidth between the cities to carry inter-city traffic?
Sounds somewhat familiar to
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2004_5.html
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
> Sanfilippo, Ted wrote:
>> It belonged to some Canadian ISP, I believe it was a cable company.
>> Regarding the aggregation/deaggregation mess. This is due to the fact
>> that ARIN is rather strict with IP assignements and how we route
>> internally. Because ARIN wants us to use 80% of our ip blocks, before we
>> can request
>> new assignments from them we have to dole out addresses in /22's to each
>> city we have, in order to use them up appropriately. Its been a bit of a
>> nightmare trying to meet ARIN's policies and also try to meet the
>> Internet Communities policies. Believe me, I would much rather advertise
>> a /16 prefix out to the Internet, rather then a /22. We have not been
>> able to accommodate this unfortunately.
>
> Err... Why do you say you need to advertise a /22 for each city rather
> than the /16 for your entire network? What's inside your network and
> how you distribute your addresses there is not of concern for anyone
> outside of your network. Why don't you advertise the /16 via BGP and
> then let the IGP handle the /22 distribution to each city?
>
>
--
Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben
Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net
