[address-policy-wg] (no subject)

On 26.01 19:57, Thilo Salmon wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> when RIPE received 82/8 from IANA about a year ago, there has been a
> discussion on potential routing issues due to ancient filters on this
> list. That thread went far enough to raise the question whether or not
> subnets in question should be returned. Getting my daily fix of tech
> rants I noticed this issue appears to have resurfaced in the mainstream
> media at
> 
> http://heise.de/newsticker/data/hob-26.01.04-000/ (German)
> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://heise.de/newsticker/data/hob-26.01.04-000/
> (Google translation)

Well I'd call that a perfect example of "distributing responsibility". 

> We received a prefix from within this network which we plan to use soon
> and I am now wondering whether or not we can expect to run into
> problems. Going through a number of looking glasses I could see my
> announcement just fine. But then, ISPs who offer lookging glass services
> are probably more likely to keep their filters up to date.
> 
> Has anybody used 82/8 subnets and gathered real life experience on how
> they route? I'd much rather be prepared, if this turns into a teaching
> assignment.

You might have a look using the RIPE NCC service called RIS:

http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/np/ris/index.html

more particular

http://www.ris.ripe.net/cgi-bin/risprefix.cgi

Looking for more specifics of 82/8 around midnight today
yields more than 21k entries of 930 distinct prefixes.
To me this means it is routed pretty ubiquitously.

I will send you the file privately because it is more tham 2MB.

Daniel