NTAC Peering Working Group

[Bill Owens <>]

A question that will reveal my limited knowledge of how routing policy is determined: is it equivalent to have a route6 object (listing the appropriate AS) or to have an Origin AS in Whois? We maintain a minimal RADB presence in order to keep a few providers happy; although I believe it is correct, it is not something we make any operational use of. If I could do the same thing in Whois, I’d choose that instead…

 

Thanks,

Bill.

 

From: <> on behalf of David Farmer <>
Date: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 2:18 PM
To: I2 IPv6 working group <>, "" <>
Subject: No route6 object for 2001:468::/32

 

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, 162.244.104.0/21 and 198.71.44.0/22 all have "Origin AS" within ARIN Whois.

For 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, 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              
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
===============================================