mailing list archives
Re: 18.104.22.168/22 invisible (fwd)
From: Kim Hubbard <kimh () internic net>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 08:51:39 -0500 (GMT-0500)
As I tried fervently to explain to you when you demanded IP addresses
while refusing to complete an ISP template, there is information in
the ISP template and the ISP guidelines which is very important to
a start up ISP. Part of that information is the paragraph below which
deals with the possibility of filtering prefix lengths.
You are incorrect when you state the paragraph below is only in the
IP template. The InterNIC has done everything we can to inform the
public of possible future consequences when receiving addresses directly
from the InterNIC.
Please read or reread the ISP guidelines (since you officially agreed
to abide by those policies in an email message to the InterNIC, I assumed you
had already read them). They can be found at ftp://rs.internic.net/
Just out of curiosity, why should Internic strap on more asbestos?
I thought the following would have been warning enough:
***PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION PRIOR TO REQUESTING AN
IP NUMBER FROM THE INTERNIC:
Due to technical and implementation constraints on the Internet routing
system and the possibility of routing overload, certain policies may
need to be enforced by the major transit providers in order to reduce
the number of globally advertised routes. These potential policies
may include setting limits on the size of CIDR prefixes added to the
routing tables, filtering of non-aggregated routes, etc. Therefore,
addresses obtained directly from the InterNIC (non-provider-based,
also known as portable) are not guaranteed to be routable on the Internet.
this is from the internet-number-template.txt, which wasn't quite the
template I dealt with (I submitted the isp-ip-template.txt), as the
requirements for the assignment were clearly (and stated to the Internic):
a.) portable, as a change in US domestic attachment point(s) is imminent
b.) multi-homed across continents is foreseeable within 3-4 months
c.) they were specifically named as networks that were in turn to be given
out to our customers, and a provider-dependent IP range was not acceptable
Given these conditions, it was gross neglience if not outright malicious for
the Internic to give us an assignment that, according to obviously previously
aired and announced policy of Sean Doran and others, would not be routed
on major parts of the Internet just days later, a fact that was for sure not
unknown to the IP registry.
That's enough reason to be cautious and strap on more asbestos for the case
I come back to them about this, I believe.
Internet Project Manager, BelCom, Inc.
515 Madison Ave Suite 2100
kai () belcom net
Ask us about Internet service in the CIS!
Bringing Internet, where there is none