Andrew Timonin tim at Relcom.EU.net
Fri Jul 7 18:10:26 CEST 1995
Dear colleagues, In message <9507070911.AA02565 at ncc.ripe.net> Daniel Karrenberg writes: >it is time for *everybody* to think again about aggregating >CIDRable routes. It is *high time* for everyone near the >top of the list below and especially those with hosts/route >at or around 256. There is lots of potential aggregation here! > >If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. The main problem is that sometimes after registering one or several networks our customer goes to another service provider. Our blocks are mentioned in the list: > /16 block hosts routes hosts > addres- / > sed route > >220.127.116.11 139520 32 4360 >18.104.22.168 2304 9 256 >22.214.171.124 65536 3 21845 It seems to almost OK with 126.96.36.199/16 block, but 193.124/15 block was delegated for all former Soviet Union. Usually customers are not willing to return their networks to us, because in this case they should 1) writeup some forms to get new networks, and 2) (which is much harder) reconfigure all their hosts and routers. They are also facing with possible DNS problems. The situation is even worse in the case when such networks are abroad Russia. What we may and/or shoud do with all this ? >Daniel Karrenberg >RIPE NCC Manager Regards, -- Andrew Timonin RELCOM Corp.
[ lir-wg Archives ]