Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

ntacpeering - Re: No route6 object for 2001:468::/32

Subject: NTAC Peering Working Group

List archive

Re: No route6 object for 2001:468::/32


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Michael H Lambert <>
  • To: David Farmer <>
  • Cc: I2 IPv6 working group <>,
  • Subject: Re: No route6 object for 2001:468::/32
  • Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2018 14:31:44 -0500
  • Dkim-filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailer1.psc.edu w02JVjq4015026
  • Ironport-phdr: 9a23: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

Given the historical resistance (maybe too strong a choice of words, but
it gives the right sense) of the GRNOC to routing registries, I'm not
all that surprised. I agree that this issue SHOULD be fixed.

Michael

David Farmer wrote:
> There is no route6 object anywhere for 2001:468::/32.
>
> This is probably because 2001:468::/32 was being routed long before
> route6 objects existed. So, It would probably be a good idea for someone
> within Internet2 or the NOC to fix this by create a route6 object for it
> or add an "Origin AS" within ARIN Online.
>
> While I was at it, I looked at IPv4 too;
>
> For 162.252.68.0/22 <http://162.252.68.0/22>, 162.244.104.0/21
> <http://162.244.104.0/21> and 198.71.44.0/22 <http://198.71.44.0/22> all
> have "Origin AS" within ARIN Whois.
>
> For 163.253.0.0/16 <http://163.253.0.0/16>, all but one sub block that
> is routed has a route object in RADB, but nothing for the aggregate /16,
> but maybe that is the way it should be.
>
> For 64.57.16.0/20 <http://64.57.16.0/20>, there is no route object or
> "Origin AS" within ARIN Whois. So, It would probably be a good idea for
> someone within Internet2 or the NOC to fix this too.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer
> Email:
> <mailto:Email%>
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================


--
Michael H Lambert, GigaPoP Manager Phone: +1 412 268-4960
Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center/3ROX FAX: +1 412 268-5832
300 S Craig St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page