Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
[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 reported to Comment:be invalid. ARIN has attempted to obtain updated data, but has Comment:been unsuccessful. Clearly ARIN has already done something about AS4474. So what else do you think they should do? Note that you might want to take this type of discussion onto the ARIN Public Policy mailing list which is open to anyone whether they are an ARIN member or not. http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html#ppml --Michael Dillon
RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
-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 illegal to source a route from two asn's. AS4474 is not theirs, for that matter it currently doesn't belong to anyone as there is not valid contact information registered in the ARIN database. They're almost done with the migration, I didn't see any emails from you when cogent was renumbering from 16631 to 174 asking for a depeering. Because I am not watching IPv4 tables and cogent announced it. Also both those ASN's are properly registered in the registries. Next to that Cogent does respond to inquiries. If you just emailed or called they would have glady resolved your issue. Can you explain the operational problem with this dual announcement? I seem to be missing it. I am a user of the internet who asked for a answer at their NOC from which I got *no* reply, except for ticket numbers, even after sending 2 messages the last two weeks. Which then caused me to inquire NANOG which is a correct list to do so as nLayer is a US based (North American) ISP. Next to that mentioning nLayer to abuse-tracking people seems to also get a response that there is quite a lot of abuse in the forms of spam from them. Is that the reason they are 'migrating' to hide their paths from the spam aware people? Maybe you, as a perfect customer, can ask them to update their objects in the ARIN registry or stop hijacking internet resources? Greets, Jeroen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFb/hgAA5fkAn0vQ8ShpW7djG0i9rYD0eGgy Lg90AKCveqh1xoaJWhMGAkwo+TuHoUUXXw== =X7/h -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
-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 do? Maybe not clear from the message I sent to NANOG, but which should be clear to ARIN: Update the AS4474 contact information. Apparently nLayer is using it, thus they should be listed there. Then again it doesn't help as they are not reachable through the contact address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) provided in the AS4436 object. One does get a XML ticket number back though. But no response whatsoever, except now from a customer of theirs. ASHandle: AS4474 Comment:The information for this ASN has been reported to Comment:be invalid. ARIN has attempted to obtain updated data, but has Comment:been unsuccessful. Clearly ARIN has already done something about AS4474. Yup, stating that the ASN is in a completely uncontactable state, which is what I mentioned. RegDate:1995-03-08 Updated:2003-07-31 Thus from those two dates we can say that it has not been contactable for over almost a year. So what else do you think they should do? Contact nLayer and see what they are now doing with this ASN. Note that you might want to take this type of discussion onto the ARIN Public Policy mailing list which is open to anyone whether they are an ARIN member or not. http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html#ppml Yes, I am aware of this list and also saw your proposal for making sure that objects that are in the ARIN registry also contain valid and contactable information. For people not having seen the petion for the proposal: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/2593.html The above case makes your point clear very well as nLayer seems not to be available to comments on their [EMAIL PROTECTED] address _and_ they are using an ASN which is shown to be not contactable at all. I would add to the proposal that resources, thus ASN's/inet[6]num's and others that have been allocated at one point and when trying to verify the contacts for those addresses seem to be unreachable should be giving a month to respond and if not a public message should be sent out that the resource has been revoked tracing the origins of that resource to find organisations that are peering/accepting that resource and contact them to see if they have a contact for that resource. If a company is unable to respond in a month it is in a very very bad shape and should not be seen as a responsible entity on the internet. Greets, Jeroen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFcCzwAA7O0An279t7H4xDPUE/gyOzIgB8Yq 26awAJ40P8OEatMPI/hutAiLGcZSgI6lqA== =TL53 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
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 that you've taken an issue which could've been handled in a polite manner, and turned it into an nlayer-bashing thread. You have: 1) encouraged nlayer's peers to depeer them 2) accused nlayer of being spammers 3) forwarded private corrospondence you received from third parties in response to your original post back to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as well as the [EMAIL PROTECTED] role account, as if the ARIN staff have nothing better to do than read your complaint about an AS# they have already marked as having invalid contact information. I think I prefer reading about the IRC packet kiddies. If OseK would care to lend his unique perspective and considerable insight to this thread, I would be most grateful. -- Jeff S Wheeler
RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474(Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
-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 the inet6 carrier(s) from which you learnt the routes? Which has been done already last year on this very list when it was already pointed out that they where not contactable. Yes, I checked the archives. As for the 'inet6 carrier' I learn the routes from, which of the 42? See http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ for more information. Indeed we monitor the IPv6 routes to find fix these anomalies where possible. Someone has to do the dirty job. Like I mentioned on the list Powerdcom, one of their upstreams, confirmed that nLayer was sending them the prefiix using AS4474. Just to be sure, it is also visible in RIS (http://ris.ripe.net) and on RouteViews. It seems to me that you've taken an issue which could've been handled in a polite manner, and turned it into an nlayer-bashing thread. If they would simply respond to inquiries that are sent to the contact address given in the whois for their ASN it wouldn't need to come to that. Also I have no intention on any bashing whatsoever as that is totally uncalled for and doesn't do any good either. They haven't responded to this inquiry yet either. This was the North American Network Operators Group list wasn't it? You have: 1) encouraged nlayer's peers to depeer them You mean that sentence at the bottom of the message clearly explaining the situation asking their peers to consider trying to contact them and if not possible to depeer? Which *IS* a normal action that ISP's should take when they cannot even reach a peer. Or do you simply let them linger away? You sound like I can force everyone to decide their network policy for them. I don't think so, I don't even want that. 2) accused nlayer of being spammers Which they have proven to be, see last years NANOG threads. 3) forwarded private corrospondence you received from third parties Which is indeed not such a polite thing to do, but was neccesary to be able to point out that their 'customers' do know about nLayer using an ASN that has been marked as a spam source since last year. response to your original post back to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as well as the [EMAIL PROTECTED] role account, as if the ARIN staff have nothing better to do than read your complaint about an AS# they have already marked as having invalid contact information. For which they can now fill in the blanks as at least their customers and one of their upstream peers have mentioned that they are using it. I think I prefer reading about the IRC packet kiddies. Then use your blacklist and block message from me ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) or using this subject. Quite easy isn't it? If OseK would care to lend his unique perspective and considerable insight to this thread, I would be most grateful. Sorry, but I guess you are confusing the humor list with NANOG. Apparently I hit quite a hot spot seeing some of the 'nice' 'private' replies being sent to me by 'customers' of nLayer. I wonder why there even is an internet if one can't even make a notice of some weird usage of Internet resources. But this subject is about why an ASN that is marked as uncontactable which also has been seen as a big spam source is being used by a entity which seems to be uncontactable, I am still waiting for their response and I am quite sure these messages have reached them by now. Or are they still 'migrating' from their spam/hijacked ASN to their own? Greets, Jeroen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFcRvAAAgxwAnRGWAgzZSmtaRVjZnVXZskrF fmGOAJ9lA43+u9Z768FOAgAZ++o2eGs5IQ== =rqS+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
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 far as AS4474, it has been well known to have been original ASN nlayer used, but it turned out to have been hijacked (done through domain reregistration), the real 'global village' is long ago gone - they were making modems and taken over by Boca Research and now I think its all part of Zoom, the only modem company that survived the .bomb. This ASN was discussed on hijacked-l about year ago and somebody thereafter reported it to ARIN (or ARIN may have done it on their own having been present there) and marked it as invalid. I thought that after this incident Nlayer would not try to go after another low-number ASN and would actually use their real arin assigned AS30371, but even 9 months after the ASN was marked invalid, they still continue to use it... [whois.arin.net] OrgName:Santa Cruz Community Internei (scruz-net) OrgID: SCCI Address:324 Encinal Street City: Santa Cmuz StateProv: CA PostalCode: 95060 Country:US ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.scruz.net:4321/ ASNumber: 4436 ASName: AS-SCRUZ-NET ASHandle: AS4436 Comment: RegDate:1995-02-17 Updated:2004-02-24 On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Jeroen Massar wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [cc: to [EMAIL PROTECTED], maybe now it will get their attention instead of going into /dev/null] Hi, Here is some operational content, instead of Packet Kiddies trying to rape each other verbally ;) According to Toshikazu Saito (Powerdcom): I know both ASs, 4436 and 4474 are yours, so nlayer should resolve this problem or respond to this. But: OrgName:Global Village Communication, Inc. OrgID: GVC-8 Address:1144 East Arques Avenue City: Sunnyvale StateProv: CA PostalCode: 94086 Country:US ASNumber: 4474 ASName: GVIL1 ASHandle: AS4474 Comment:The information for this ASN has been reported to Comment:be invalid. ARIN has attempted to obtain updated data, but has Comment:been unsuccessful. To provide current contact information, Comment:please e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] RegDate:1995-03-08 Updated:2003-07-31 The reason for the above was that we are currently seeing 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village Communication) but apparently this is the same company and apparently they are using the bogus ASN. Bogus as it has no valid contact information See telnet://grh.sixxs.net or http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?find=2001:590::/32 for the odd routes and who it goes over. As nLayer seems to be able to only send ticket responses but there seems to be no real user alive maybe it is time to start letting their peers ask them what to do with this and if they can't contact them to just start depeering? Unresponsive NOC's is a real nightmare. Greets, Jeroen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFb4WAAAoTsAniiZQnM0LhXbVJD7keZCNu6f CM2OAKCPs2tdOfwt49m8/xLnugqyGRMnGA== =ePKi -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
--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 such as 204.139.8.0/21, 204.147.224.0/20 and others certainly seem to confirm that. Because they acquired dsl.net's peering infrastructure, and announced such to their peers?
Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
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. -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [cc: to [EMAIL PROTECTED], maybe now it will get their attention instead of going into /dev/null] Hi, Here is some operational content, instead of Packet Kiddies trying to rape each other verbally ;) According to Toshikazu Saito (Powerdcom): I know both ASs, 4436 and 4474 are yours, so nlayer should resolve this problem or respond to this. But: OrgName:Global Village Communication, Inc. OrgID: GVC-8 Address:1144 East Arques Avenue City: Sunnyvale StateProv: CA PostalCode: 94086 Country:US ASNumber: 4474 ASName: GVIL1 ASHandle: AS4474 Comment:The information for this ASN has been reported to Comment:be invalid. ARIN has attempted to obtain updated data, but has Comment:been unsuccessful. To provide current contact information, Comment:please e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] RegDate:1995-03-08 Updated:2003-07-31 The reason for the above was that we are currently seeing 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village Communication) but apparently this is the same company and apparently they are using the bogus ASN. Bogus as it has no valid contact information See telnet://grh.sixxs.net or http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?find=2001:590::/32 for the odd routes and who it goes over. As nLayer seems to be able to only send ticket responses but there seems to be no real user alive maybe it is time to start letting their peers ask them what to do with this and if they can't contact them to just start depeering? Unresponsive NOC's is a real nightmare. Greets, Jeroen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFb4WAAAoTsAniiZQnM0LhXbVJD7keZCNu6f CM2OAKCPs2tdOfwt49m8/xLnugqyGRMnGA== =ePKi -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
-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 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 AS4474 not having any contact information available per ARIN registry. Thus who do you call then when AS4436 doesn't seem home? Indeed: ARIN, which also didn't seem home thus: NANOG. 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. It then turned into this indeed. I have contacted quite a number of ISP's who had misconfigurations and most, except AS10318 and this one, replied and thanked for notifying them of this and they resolved the issue of which they where not aware. Greets, Jeroen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFc1dgAAnAEAn1Z0I3N/N42uBJW6E7woBTJN rT+2AJ411vJQIaq4u0OoKjt/ayonOZ448A== =dZCB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
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 object with a different origin which was learnt earlier, a masking effect that continued even after the original masking route was withdrawn. I don't have any solid documentation or results of experiments to support this, although it seemed very real at the time. It has always led me to promote the conservative practice of advertising routes with a consistent origin AS. 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 implementations of the protocol? Joe
Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
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 implementations of the protocol? based on the protocol, not any specific implementation thereof. Joe
Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
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 appearence of inconsistant origin ASs on locally originated routes. Who would have thought local-as would bring down the wrath of the net k00ks. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
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 AS4474 not having any contact information available per ARIN registry. Thus who do you call then when AS4436 doesn't seem home? Indeed: ARIN, which also didn't seem home thus: NANOG. Next time you want to contact a noc, you might want to try not doing it as a cc: to an e-mail encouraging random peers to depeer someone because of an inconsistant origin AS caused by the use of local-as. Actions like that (and these for that matter) tend to get one branded a net kook... And feedings the kooks is never productive. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
-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 happening and maybe finding out if it was an erronous configuration I tried to find the contacts which lead to AS4474 not having any contact information available per ARIN registry. Thus who do you call then when AS4436 doesn't seem home? Indeed: ARIN, which also didn't seem home thus: NANOG. Next time you want to contact a noc, you might want to try not doing it as a cc: to an e-mail encouraging random peers to depeer someone because of an inconsistant origin AS caused by the use of local-as. I wonder why many people are acting so hard about that small mention of it, apparently that did take enough attention while the subject at hand didn't get taken a look at at all. For your pleasure below is the complete detailed message I sent to them. If you still think that I am a 'kook' or other odd insults then please keep them to yourself. I thought NANOG was for Network Operators and not for flame wars and tidbits. Actions like that (and these for that matter) tend to get one branded a net kook... And feedings the kooks is never productive. :) Thank you very much for yet another insult, at least you are polite enough to do it on a public mailinglist instead of trying to mailbomb me. I still wonder why that is happening as I was and still am trying to be friendly and hoping to figure out why it is happening. FYI there are only 2 prefixes that have this currently in the entire routing table but alas. Greets, Jeroen - From: Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois) Hi, We are currently seeing 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village Communication) As 2001:590::/32 is assigned to nLayer I assume that AS4474 is in error. AS4474 information is apparently invalid according to ARIN whois, thus emailing their 'upstream' AS4716/Powerdcom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). From grh.sixxs.net, see http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ or directly: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?find=2001:590::/32, see formatted output below. It might be interresting for you to setup a peering with GRH so these bugs are better traceable and we can easily see that they are or are not originating from your systems. Greets, Jeroen Originated from AS4436: 2001:590::/32 2001:668:0:1:34:49:6900:40 1980 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:468:ff:121d::211537 7660 2500 2497 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:610:25:5062::62 1103 11537 7660 2500 2497 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:688:0:1::1 5511 2500 2497 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:690::10 1930 20965 11537 7660 2500 2497 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:770:8:: 1213 20965 11537 7660 2500 2497 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:1418:1:400::1 12779 6175 2497 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:14e0::f 12931 8472 6830 4589 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:6f8:800::244589 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:7f8:1::a500:6830:1 6830 4589 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:890:600:4f0::11 8447 6830 4589 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:608:0:fff::6 5539 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:470:1fff:3::3 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 3ffe:c00:0:1::1109 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:610:ff:c::2 1888 1103 3425 293 109 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:728:0:1000::f000227 2914 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:ad0:fe:0:205:32ff:fe03:c650 3327 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 3ffe:8150::19044 5424 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 3ffe:1d00::3 5623 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:1888:: 6435 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 3ffe:401c:0:3:20c:ceff:fe05:da0e 29657 10566 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:15a8:1:1::6 29449 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 3ffe:401d:f00::1 30071 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 3ffe:401d:f00::5 30071 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 3ffe:401d:f00::9 30071 6939 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:8e0:0:::4 8758 3257 4436 2001:590::/32 2001:780:0:2::612337 3257 4436
RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
-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 happening and maybe finding out if it was an erronous configuration I tried to find the contacts which lead to AS4474 not having any contact information available per ARIN registry. Thus who do you call then when AS4436 doesn't seem home? Indeed: ARIN, which also didn't seem home thus: NANOG. Next time you want to contact a noc, you might want to try not doing it as a cc: to an e-mail encouraging random peers to depeer someone because of an inconsistant origin AS caused by the use of local-as. Actions like that (and these for that matter) tend to get one branded a net kook... And feedings the kooks is never productive. :) The issue has been explained by a certain 'representative' in a seperate mail. Apparently they have acquired a number of networks amongst which they also AS4474 to/from which they are migrating requiring the above setup. Now let's hope that they will finish this migration soon without problems and update the registry objects in question so that in the future there can be no doubt about this even when you are on the other side of the world and nothing about such a migration is documented anywhere. Greets, Jeroen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFd8VgAADnoAnRGvrYWKggDeZndSak1Pp38y SWnAAJ4x/yhN6Mf6SF7iG6mdzfTsKL16Ig== =1REM -END PGP SIGNATURE-
