> Hi Folks, > Below a good question for IP addresses from KPNQwest. From what concerns > CH, i identified following blocks: > > 1. 193.72/15 - Allocated unspecified > 2. 194.191/16 - Allocated PA > 3. 195.48/16 - Allocated PA > 4. 195.49/17 - Allocated PA
Forgot 146.228.0.0/16 (o; But that's not for customers anyway (o; > > Current AS1836 customers are actively migrating to other ISPs. Since > this is often an emergency process, we (= the concerned ISPs) will > originate smalller blocks. We should try to keep in touch among us, to > try and preserve a consistent routing. > For 1. and 2. -> no problem since /24s are always accepted > For 3 and 4, a block smaller than /20 will get sub-optimal routing -> > bad > > what about posting on this list every network each ISP will route within > these blocks ? -> We can at the end say for example: ISP A got 70% of > 195.49/17 -> ISP A takes over the block and only 30% of the customers > have to renumber. > > We will route the following very soon > - 195.49.3.0/24 > - 195.49.118.0/24 > > Good idea ? > Waiting for feedback > Andr� > > > >X-IPr: 164.128.36.62 > >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 14:54:38 +0000 > >From: Andre Stiphout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: new swamp ? > >User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i > >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >X-Loop-Detect: RIPE NCC > > > >What is the position of the RIPE NCC/RIPE community on the address > space > >of a SP that disappears from the net? Is there a clear statement > >somewhere describing that all of the SP PA-space needs to be returned > >within x months to RIPE? > > > >What we and other providers are seeing is that KPNQ customers want to > >retain their PA space if they move over; we would like them to renumber > >(of course :-) and as long as KPNQ as an entity is around we insist on > >it, in the usual timeframe. > > > >But in the case the pullups go, signifying the end of a network, and > >there is no clear RIPE policy behind this, I suspect not many providers > >will care about getting these customers renumbered if these customers > >feel they retain sufficient global connectivity. The net result is an > >increase of the size of the routing table. > > > >Is this detailed in the LIR contract or something and what is the value > >of that contract if the LIR disappears, but the customers find > >connectivity elsewhere? > > > >-- > >Thanks! Andr[alt-130] Stiphout - Mngr IP Core, Standards & Analysis > >WorldCom - Network Services - Data Technology - AS702 > > > >Ultima Ratio Regum - Louis XIV > >PGP Fingerprint C8 98 2D 73 5E 2A 11 01 41 C1 70 B7 95 9D 1A 4C > > --------------------- > Andre Chapuis > IP+ Engineering > Swisscom Ltd > Genfergasse 14 > 3050 Bern > +41 31 893 89 61 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CCIE #6023 > --------------------- > > ---------------------------------------------- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/ > ---------------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/
