North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Routing wars pending?

  • From: Hank Nussbacher
  • Date: Wed Nov 15 03:10:46 1995

I would like to bring up the matter of address ownership.  Here is
the story:

ILAN acts as registry of last resort in Israel.  It owns and assigns
IP addresses in the 192.114-118.0.0 address range.  These 5 blocks
are owned by ILAN (AS378).  Over the years, many IP addresses have
been assigned - in the past to individual companies and more lately
CIDR blocks to local ISPs. ILAN takes a 50 one time fee to register
the IP address for the requestor.

Company FOO which has a class C decides to leave their current ISP - D.
They move to ISP - N - which has their own CIDR block and does the
good thing - forces the company to renumber and then informs ILAN
that the company has relinquished the old class C.  This allows me
to reclaim IP addresses and form blocks of /22 and /21 which previously
could not be done.  All good up to this point.

ISP D says since they paid the 50 registration fee - they now own
the class C forever.  I tell them that that is not the case and that
the address was registered in the name of the company and not in the
name of the ISP. They reassign the class C to other customers -
at the same time I have reassigned the reallocated class C to some
one else.

Their upstream service provider - U - says to D:

"Please inform me to delete the networks below from your access-list per
Ilan request.  It is a policy of U to only delete networks per U's
customer request and not anyone else.

This issues needs to resolved by you and ILAN and once it has been resolved,
please let me what networks to delete."

Ok so far.  I trust D and ILAN will resolve this peacefully.  But
what about cases where it cannot be resolved peacfully?  The routing
tables are gonna start growing.  ILAN withdrew 190 routes on August 1st
when it started announcing 192.114.0.0/16 and 192.115.0.0/16.  Now,
since D is announcing a more specific (/24) - it turns out that his
route supercedes my larger aggregate.  How to combat it?  I would have
to start reannouncing all my specifics so as to counter-override
his /24.

What were to happen if this ISP picked a chunk of unused IP address
space in my blocks, and started advertising it as /24s?  His upstream
service provider - U - just accepts it and starts routing.  We maintain
the authoritative source for IP address ownership in whois.ripe.net.
We found that the upstream service provider - U - went and added a
route object in whois.ra.net for the /24s (there are 2 cases now) -
basely solely on the word of ISP D. So now there is a contradiction
between the two databases.  Now if D were to start advertising many
unallocated /24s, I would be in a big problem and have to restart
announcing my specifics.

What are people doing in this area today?  Are we going to start
seeing routing wars?

Thanks,
Hank Nussbacher
Israel