Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)

2004-03-16 Thread Michael . Dillon
[cc: to [EMAIL PROTECTED], maybe now it will get their attention instead of going into /dev/null] This is an odd thing to do because you don't say what action you would like ARIN to take. What do you think ARIN should do? ASHandle: AS4474 Comment:The information for this ASN has been

RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)

2004-03-16 Thread Jeroen Massar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jordan Lowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who are you to start publicly trying to deeper people? Nlayer has a great noc, I am a customer, and know many more. They are currently migrating from 4474 to 4436 due to the asn issue, and its not

RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)

2004-03-16 Thread Jeroen Massar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [cc: to [EMAIL PROTECTED], maybe now it will get their attention instead of going into /dev/null] This is an odd thing to do because you don't say what action you would like ARIN to take. What do you think ARIN should

RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)

2004-03-16 Thread Jeff S Wheeler
Before you started a rant on [EMAIL PROTECTED] about this inconsistent-as problem on an inet6 route, did you think about posting a polite, Please, someone from nlayer, contact me off-list, message; or how about an email to the inet6 carrier(s) from which you learnt the routes? It seems to me

RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474(Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)

2004-03-16 Thread Jeroen Massar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeff S Wheeler wrote: Before you started a rant on [EMAIL PROTECTED] about this inconsistent-as problem on an inet6 route, did you think about posting a polite, Please, someone from nlayer, contact me off-list, message; or how about an email to

Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)

2004-03-16 Thread william(at)elan.net
Why would nlayer be now using AS4436? It is listed as scruz.net, but as far as I remember scruz was taken overy by DSL.NET (I think that even included their peering agreements) and some of their ip block such as 204.139.8.0/21, 204.147.224.0/20 and others certainly seem to confirm that. As

Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)

2004-03-16 Thread John Payne
--On Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:52 AM -0800 william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why would nlayer be now using AS4436? It is listed as scruz.net, but as far as I remember scruz was taken overy by DSL.NET (I think that even included their peering agreements) and some of their ip block

Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)

2004-03-16 Thread bill
so... the subject is somewhat disingenious. there is no problem with a prefix being announced by more than one ASN. Per the original subject, this seemed to be your gripe. however, the thread has devolved into someone using network resources w/o registration... which is different.

RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)

2004-03-16 Thread Jeroen Massar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so... the subject is somewhat disingenious. there is no problem with a prefix being announced by more than one ASN. 2001:590::/32 _is_ being announced by both AS4436 *and* AS4474. Trying to contact these

Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)

2004-03-16 Thread Joe Abley
On 16 Mar 2004, at 12:03, bill wrote: there is no problem with a prefix being announced by more than one ASN. I am fairly sure that I have seen real-life issues with at least one vendor's BGP implementation which led a valid route object with one origin to be masked by another valid route

Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)

2004-03-16 Thread bill
On 16 Mar 2004, at 12:03, bill wrote: there is no problem with a prefix being announced by more than one ASN. Bill: have you done any measurement exercises to determine whether this is, in fact, an issue? Or was your comment above based on the protocol, rather than deployed

Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)

2004-03-16 Thread Richard A Steenbergen
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 09:03:21AM -0800, bill wrote: so... the subject is somewhat disingenious. there is no problem with a prefix being announced by more than one ASN. Per the original subject, this seemed to be your gripe. Using local-as to migrate sessions individually results in the

Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)

2004-03-16 Thread Richard A Steenbergen
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 06:12:22PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: 2001:590::/32 _is_ being announced by both AS4436 *and* AS4474. Trying to contact these ASN's to inquire why that is happening and maybe finding out if it was an erronous configuration I tried to find the contacts which lead to

RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)

2004-03-16 Thread Jeroen Massar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 06:12:22PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: 2001:590::/32 _is_ being announced by both AS4436 *and* AS4474. Trying to contact these ASN's to inquire why that is

RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)

2004-03-16 Thread Jeroen Massar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 06:12:22PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: 2001:590::/32 _is_ being announced by both AS4436 *and* AS4474. Trying to contact these ASN's to inquire why that is