[90437] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 41/8 announcement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Wed May 24 09:15:07 2006
In-Reply-To: <a5db8c2b0605240137i3bc1fefh2f6486f12c5b4c21@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 09:14:02 -0400
To: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On May 24, 2006, at 4:37 AM, Richard Mikisa wrote:
[...]
>> >Turns out the folks at fastweb (Italy) NAT there adsl clients but
>> >instead of using the rfc1918 space like most people, they use
>> >unassigned
>> >global /8s. Well 41/8 is one of there NATted allocations for
>> Turin. No
>> >amount of emails will get them to respond, calling isn't any better
>> >as I
>> >get only Italian speaking people at the other end. Any ideas out
>> >there?
>
> Yes: you lose, sorry. :-)
> Many of their networking people are less than clueful, and I fear that
> they are not going to renumber a whole city just to let their
> customers
> communicate with a few African networks...
One of the points of NAT is to make renumbering easy. Silly them.
I have a rule: Your network, your rules. If they want to be
disconnected from Africa, you can't stop them. And they are not
"hijacking" the /8, it is not announced on the 'Net. This is
identical to a null route inside their ASN. I would never dream of
telling them they cannot decide which netblocks should be routeable
inside their own ASN.
Fortunately, I have another rule: My network, my rules. If someone
can find the real addresses for FastWeb uses for the NAT pool and
post it here (and other *NOG lists), networks can ensure that
FastWeb's end users will be unable to communicate with a lot more
than "a few African networks". I think the show of solidarity would
be good for the 'Net.
--
TTFN,
patrick
