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: David Farmer <>
  • To: Bill Owens <>
  • Cc: I2 IPv6 working group <>, "" <>
  • Subject: Re: No route6 object for 2001:468::/32
  • Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 14:26:23 -0600
  • Ironport-phdr: 9a23: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

Well, it is more or less equivalent now, well the last couple weeks.  I wouldn't go remove and RADB objects just yet, but maybe in the future.

See the other email I just forwarded.

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Bill Owens <> wrote:

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
===============================================




--
===============================================
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
===============================================



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page