Re: New on RIPE Labs: The Curious Case of 128.0/16

2011-12-07 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net said: Using RIPE's traceroute web interface, I can see that Sprint is filtering 128.0.0.0/16: Sprint is now passing routes and traffic in 128.0.0.0/16. -- Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet

New on RIPE Labs: The Curious Case of 128.0/16

2011-12-06 Thread Mirjam Kuehne
Dear colleagues, Related to the discussion about 128.0/16, we did some measurements. The details can be found on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/the-curious-case-of-128.0-16 Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

Re: New on RIPE Labs: The Curious Case of 128.0/16

2011-12-06 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Mirjam Kuehne m...@ripe.net said: Dear colleagues, Related to the discussion about 128.0/16, we did some measurements. The details can be found on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/the-curious-case-of-128.0-16 Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

Re: New on RIPE Labs: The Curious Case of 128.0/16

2011-12-06 Thread Jack Bates
On 12/6/2011 9:38 AM, Chris Adams wrote: I believe that Sprint is using Cisco, not Juniper. This is either a manual filter or there is another (unidentified) issue with some Cisco configurations. People are less likely to read an RFC changing the reserved addresses. Even people who didn't

Re: New on RIPE Labs: The Curious Case of 128.0/16

2011-12-06 Thread Henry Yen
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 09:38:31AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: Using RIPE's traceroute web interface, I can see that Sprint is filtering 128.0.0.0/16: I believe that Sprint is using Cisco, not Juniper. This is either a manual filter or there is another (unidentified) issue with some Cisco