ripe allocation 82.0.0.0/8 and arin allocation 69.0.0.0/8
ARIN recently released blocks from the 69.0.0.0/8 which are causing numerous problems with routing in this block. Some 200 blocks have been issued from 69.0.0.0/8 and i've spoken with at least 15 operators who have complained. I understand the 82.0.0.0/8 block suffers from the same problem. From what I can see RIPE has not yet issued any netblocks from this pool. If RIPE does issues blocks from this pool will RIPE take back the IP if it enconters the same problems or will RIPE follow the ARIN approach of no returns even though ARIN and RIPE are aware of the frustration it is causing. Some operators I have spoken with in 69/8 have suffered damage to thier business operations. Cheers Joe Baptista -- Planet Communications & Computing Facility a division of The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
Joe Baptista said:
ARIN recently released blocks from the 69.0.0.0/8 which are causing numerous problems with routing in this block. Some 200 blocks have been issued from 69.0.0.0/8 and i've spoken with at least 15 operators who have complained.
I understand the 82.0.0.0/8 block suffers from the same problem.
Pardon me if this seems a dumb question, but what is the problem with these two blocks that doesn't apply to others? -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 Internet Expert | Home: <clive@davros.org> | Fax: +44 870 051 9937 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646 Thus plc | |
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Joe Baptista said:
ARIN recently released blocks from the 69.0.0.0/8 which are causing numerous problems with routing in this block. Some 200 blocks have been issued from 69.0.0.0/8 and i've spoken with at least 15 operators who have complained.
I understand the 82.0.0.0/8 block suffers from the same problem.
Pardon me if this seems a dumb question, but what is the problem with these two blocks that doesn't apply to others?
they don't route. problem is related to legacy equipment/bogon lists which have not been updated - in most cases corporations setup their router years ago and no one knows how to update them. this is also a major problem. If you goto nanog and search the archives for 69.0.0.0 you'll get more info there. And so far based on my research every operator of an allocation from a 69/8 who has tried to use it has experienced routing problems. I expect the same will apply to any 82/8 allocations. regards joe baptista
Good morning, In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.0301011341580.22323-100000@dot-god.com>, Joe Baptista <baptista@dot-god.com> writes [...]
I understand the 82.0.0.0/8 block suffers from the same problem. From what I can see RIPE has not yet issued any netblocks from this pool. If RIPE does issues blocks from this pool will RIPE take back the IP if it enconters the same problems or will RIPE follow the ARIN approach of no returns even though ARIN and RIPE are aware of the frustration it is causing.
The RIPE NCC has not yet made any allocations from 82.0.0.0/8. All address space from which the RIPE NCC makes allocations is documented in the "Smallest RIPE NCC Allocation / Assignment Sizes" document. The latest version of this document is always available from the following web page: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html> The RIPE NCC also makes an announcements to various mailing lists when a new block is received from the IANA. The announcement of 82.0.0.0/8 was made on 27 November 2002 and can be viewed in our mail archives at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/routing-wg/2002/msg00195.html> The RIPE NCC can not guarantee whether any particular route will be accepted by any network operator. Best regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, leo vegoda wrote:
The RIPE NCC can not guarantee whether any particular route will be accepted by any network operator.
Thats a problem. Question - if one of your customers discovers that an allocation does not route can they have it replaced with one that does. I understand you don't guarantee any particular allocation will route. And in the old days when the charges were minimal for IP allocation - well one could reluctantly accept that. However - under the new policies you boys are charging these people hefty bucks and that means liability and I don't think it prudent to hide behind the routing claim. I have documented over 15 cases in which the 69.0.0.0/8 fiasco has cost these people clients and business that went elsewhere. Have also documented situations in which these recent allocation have resulted in the renumbering of networks out of 69.0.0.0/8 allocations into arpa that works. So you see I think it prudent that there be a policy to allow for returns and replacement of arpa. I don't think you boys should be issuing numbers when you are aware that they don't work and are causing people financial problems to their business operations. So if you do get complaints regarding 82.0.0.0/8 - do you intend to make sure your customers get network that work - or will RIPE be following the ARIN lead and just let these people hang. regards joe baptista
Hi, On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 07:18:28AM -0500, Joe Baptista wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, leo vegoda wrote:
The RIPE NCC can not guarantee whether any particular route will be accepted by any network operator.
Thats a problem. Question - if one of your customers discovers that an allocation does not route can they have it replaced with one that does.
Not speaking for the RIPE NCC, of course, but knowing the procedures fairly well. The answer is "no", of course. There was a trial phase when blocks from 62.0.0.0/8 was initially handed out (because it wasn't understood what bad effects using a "former A" might have), but that does not apply to any other /8. It is *not* RIPE's responsibility to guarantee routeability of anything. If people mess up their filters, *they* have to fix it. Talk to them, talk to their upstreams, distribute clue. [..]
I understand you don't guarantee any particular allocation will route. And in the old days when the charges were minimal for IP allocation - well one could reluctantly accept that. However - under the new policies you boys are charging these people hefty bucks and that means liability and I don't think it prudent to hide behind the routing claim. I have documented over 15 cases in which the 69.0.0.0/8 fiasco has cost these people clients and business that went elsewhere.
I have no idea what you are talking about. RIPE does NOT charge per-allocation. If you have a problem with ARIN, go and complain to them. [..]
So if you do get complaints regarding 82.0.0.0/8 - do you intend to make sure your customers get network that work - or will RIPE be following the ARIN lead and just let these people hang.
It's RIPE's job to manage the number space, and the number space is limited (!). Before long, *there is no other space* than "former A" to allocate from - and if that space is filtered at some point in the network, it's the responsibility of the person filtering, not the people trying to manage a limited resource in the best possible way. (Not that I am always in 100% agreement with what the RIPE or ARIN people do, but *this* is not something they have influence upon). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54707 (54686) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Joe Baptista wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, leo vegoda wrote:
The RIPE NCC can not guarantee whether any particular route will be accepted by any network operator.
<SNIP>
I understand you don't guarantee any particular allocation will route.
Every network operator, enduser etc can choose to accept routes based upon locally defined policies. If they choose not to accept a certain route that is their personal opininion. Eg. Some complete countries will filter anything related to eg CNN or any other American "propaganda" (as that is what they will call it). Now you go tell them as being CNN that they _should_ accept your route and that they should be accepting your 'propaganda'. These are political problems and if you have have problems with those the clients of those ISP's that don't accept the route for those certain netblocks should complain to their uplink. This is all about freedom of choice and it's good we have it. Greets, Jeroen
Joe, I fail to see your point. You are crying wolf when in fact there none to be seen at the moment. We went through this a couple of years ago with the 62/8 range and after a couple of month all the bugs were worked out. 80/8 is assigned by RIPE for quite some time now and seems to be working fine. There are always over-zealous networks admins who think it's safe to block everything that wasn't routed five years ago. Unfortunatly they can't remember to update the filters, left the company or got fired. Shit happens. One day one of their users will complain he can't reach this or that site. Eventually one of the expensive consultants will find that stupid filter and remove it. Nothing RIPE can do much about. There is no way RIPE can change that except documenting and educating the people who care to even read the RIPE website. -- Andre Joe Baptista wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, leo vegoda wrote:
The RIPE NCC can not guarantee whether any particular route will be accepted by any network operator.
Thats a problem. Question - if one of your customers discovers that an allocation does not route can they have it replaced with one that does.
I understand you don't guarantee any particular allocation will route. And in the old days when the charges were minimal for IP allocation - well one could reluctantly accept that. However - under the new policies you boys are charging these people hefty bucks and that means liability and I don't think it prudent to hide behind the routing claim. I have documented over 15 cases in which the 69.0.0.0/8 fiasco has cost these people clients and business that went elsewhere.
Have also documented situations in which these recent allocation have resulted in the renumbering of networks out of 69.0.0.0/8 allocations into arpa that works.
So you see I think it prudent that there be a policy to allow for returns and replacement of arpa. I don't think you boys should be issuing numbers when you are aware that they don't work and are causing people financial problems to their business operations.
So if you do get complaints regarding 82.0.0.0/8 - do you intend to make sure your customers get network that work - or will RIPE be following the ARIN lead and just let these people hang.
regards joe baptista
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, leo vegoda wrote:
The RIPE NCC can not guarantee whether any particular route will be accepted by any network operator.
Which seems fairly reasonable to me.
Thats a problem. Question - if one of your customers discovers that an allocation does not route can they have it replaced with one that does.
Better fix the real problem than escape it? I'd guess main cause of problem being lack of understanding, so propagate know-how to concerned parties rather than provide quick fix.
I understand you don't guarantee any particular allocation will route. And in the old days when the charges were minimal for IP allocation - well one could reluctantly accept that. However - under the new policies you boys are charging these people hefty bucks and that means liability and I don't think it prudent to hide behind the routing claim. I have documented over 15 cases in which the 69.0.0.0/8 fiasco has cost these people clients and business that went elsewhere.
Hrm,... charging for what?? <snip /> mh
Michael Hallgren wrote (on Jan 02):
Better fix the real problem than escape it? I'd guess main cause of problem being lack of understanding, so propagate know-how to concerned parties rather than provide quick fix.
Or, if some company has an internal policy that unfairly causes you to lose business and is not being cooperative on the technical level, get your legal persons to send them a nice letter about anti- competitive behaviour and work from there. Sometimes, getting your MD to call their MD, fly to their HQ for a tour+coffee or any of a number of other non-technical approach may also work. Once technical means fail, it's no longer a problam technical means can solve. Rewriting the rules of how the IRR's work is not a scalable solution. Clue distribution is always preferrable, but ultimately this is a business world and sometimes you have to revert to the age-tested tools society has developed for resolving disputes. Chris. -- == chris@easynet.net T: +44 845 333 0122 == Global IP Network Engineering Mgr, Easynet Group PLC F: +44 845 333 0122
participants (8)
-
Andre Oppermann -
Chris Luke -
Clive D.W. Feather -
Gert Doering -
Jeroen Massar -
Joe Baptista -
leo vegoda -
Michael Hallgren