Routing to ARIN from Teleglobe (2001:5a0::/32)

[Randy Epstein]

> Yes they can (shortened, from the second posting by nenad in this
> thread):
> 
> |  7 zpr2.amt.cw.net (2001:7f8:1::a500:1273:1)  45.544 ms
> |  8  as0-dcr2.amd.cw.net (2001:5000:0:11::2)  45.460 ms
> |  9  so-4-0-0-dcr1.tsd.cw.net (2001:5000:0:20::2)  52.230 ms
> |  10  * * *
> 
> Hop 10 would be OCCAID in London.

So wait.  Teleglobe has OCCAID's route?  This is trace from Teleglobe to
OCCAID?

> Valid conclusion. Thing is, both 1273 (Cable and Wireless) and 3257
> (Tiscali) send a fulltable to OCCAID, and both have a direct peering
> with Teleglobe (and of course both have it in the table). So why are
> those prefixes not accepted?

OCCAID does not receive full transit from any network anymore.  They are
default free.  If there are missing prefixes, then OCCAID and the other
network need to work it out.

> There is nothing Teleglobe can do about this, because the Teleglobe
> routing is sane. Well, except peering up OCCAID. But I don't know why
> entities like ARIN have to be single-homed behind an R&D network.
> www.arin.net resolves to two IPv4 prefixes, one is single-homed behind
> Sprint (not a great IPv6 transit, but better than nothing), one has at
> least GBLX and Verio as upstream, both pretty sane IPv6 transits.

I would guess you would need to take this up with ARIN.  But yes, there is
something Teleglobe can do about this.  They can peer.

> I bet both of my hands that the number used to be around 150 yesterday.
> Wait, not only yesterday, this has been an issue since (grepping IRC
> logs) at least mid-August 2006. OCCAID have been missing quite some
> routes since then, now they are apparently starting to fix it.

I don't believe it was 150 yesterday unless some additional network
peered/connected with OCCAID.  There was an additional peer added a week or
so ago, France Telecom.  Maybe this resolved some of the missing prefixes?

> Jeroen, is there a way to get the "Missing prefixes" thing for a past
> date?
> 
> Is this 6bone where you throw a tunnel/peering to anyone you want to
> exchange traffic with because the available transits might be broken?
> :-)

No, not at all.  However, OCCAID is available in enough common
points-of-presence to peer with OCCAID because it makes sense and this is
hurting Teleglobe's PAYING CUSTOMERS.

> I'm not here to blame OCCAID (this time), but finger-pointing to
> Teleglobe in this case is utter bullsh*t. The missing of half a
> fulltable at OCCAID has been widely known for months now.

Half?  Now it's half?  Bernhard, please stick to your story.

> Regards,
> Bernhard

Regards,

Randy Epstein