LACNIC to start allocating from 189/8 and 190/8

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

This an announcement that LACNIC will start to make allocations from
address space 189.0.0.0/8 and 190.0.0.0/8 on next November 2005.

These blocks were allocated to LACNIC by IANA on last June 2005.

This announcement has the objective to remind you that adjusts to any
filters in place might be needed.

For additional information about blocks under LACNIC administration
and responsibility, please refer to:
http://lacnic.net/en/registro/index.html

Tests have been conducted in order to verify possibles routing
problems and or filters.
The following blocks are being announced:

189.0.0.0/20
189.128.0.0/21
190.0.0.0/20
190.128.0.0/21

Regards

Ricardo Patara
RS Manager

2

Hello,
Commenting myself, there is an machine in the first address of
each the announced blocks. Just in the case someone want to
ping/traceroute. (189.0.0.1, 189.128.0.1, 190.0.0.1, 190.128.0.1)
I forgot to mention this before.

Ricardo Patara

3

Commenting myself, there is an machine in the first address of
each the announced blocks. Just in the case someone want to
ping/traceroute. (189.0.0.1, 189.128.0.1, 190.0.0.1, 190.128.0.1)
I forgot to mention this before.

from a quite competent dsl provider in hawai`i

roam.psg.com:/usr/home/randy> for i in 189.0.0.1 189.128.0.1 190.0.0.1 190.128.0.1; do ping -c 5 $i; done
PING 189.0.0.1 (189.0.0.1): 56 data bytes

--- 189.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
PING 189.128.0.1 (189.128.0.1): 56 data bytes

--- 189.128.0.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
PING 190.0.0.1 (190.0.0.1): 56 data bytes

--- 190.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
PING 190.128.0.1 (190.128.0.1): 56 data bytes

--- 190.128.0.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss

from a machine dual-homed to to major tier-1s in seattle

psg.com:/usr/home/randy> for i in 189.0.0.1 189.128.0.1 190.0.0.1 190.128.0.1; do ping -c 5 $i; done
PING 189.0.0.1 (189.0.0.1): 56 data bytes

--- 189.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
PING 189.128.0.1 (189.128.0.1): 56 data bytes

--- 189.128.0.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
PING 190.0.0.1 (190.0.0.1): 56 data bytes

--- 190.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
PING 190.128.0.1 (190.128.0.1): 56 data bytes

--- 190.128.0.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss

and they are in the routing tables

randy

4

Sprint's not playing nice. All of my upstreams appear to dump it to sprint at some point and I get:

  10 sl-bb22-orl-14-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.130) [AS 1239] 64 msec 68 msec 72 msec
  11 sl-st20-mia-14-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.56) [AS 1239] 84 msec 84 msec 84 msec
  12 sl-brazi-1-0.sprintlink.net (144.223.244.26) [AS 1239] 188 msec 188 msec 188 msec
  13 * * *

Ricardo Patara wrote:

5

Same from here. I get to brasil telecom then nothing. Routes are in the table...

Chris

Randy Bush wrote:

6

My results match Randy's. I looked at these blocks from several networks (ATT, Cogent, PSI, XO, Comcast). All have the routes showing. ICMP Echo packets do not come back via any of them. Either the machines aren't listening, the echos are being blocked, or there's widespread blockage.

Traces appear to make it to Brazil before dying in all cases, pointing at an issue closer to where your test machines are located.

7

Same here from multiple networks on the west coast & some on the east. See the routes in the table though.

8

Hi,

There was some packet filters based on ip destination/source address
in between the machines. It should be all working now.

Thanks for all feedbacks.

Ricardo Patara

9

psg.com:/usr/home/randy> for i in 189.0.0.1 189.128.0.1 190.0.0.1 190.128.0.1; do ping -c 5 $i; done
PING 189.0.0.1 (189.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 189.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=54 time=220.296 ms
64 bytes from 189.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=219.952 ms
64 bytes from 189.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=220.057 ms
64 bytes from 189.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=220.221 ms
64 bytes from 189.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=221.513 ms

--- 189.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 219.952/220.408/221.513/0.566 ms
PING 189.128.0.1 (189.128.0.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 189.128.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=54 time=222.030 ms
64 bytes from 189.128.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=221.872 ms
64 bytes from 189.128.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=222.107 ms
64 bytes from 189.128.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=222.094 ms
64 bytes from 189.128.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=221.575 ms

--- 189.128.0.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 221.575/221.936/222.107/0.199 ms
PING 190.0.0.1 (190.0.0.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 190.0.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=54 time=218.843 ms
64 bytes from 190.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=218.311 ms
64 bytes from 190.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=217.911 ms
64 bytes from 190.0.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=217.902 ms
64 bytes from 190.0.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=218.001 ms

--- 190.0.0.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 217.902/218.194/218.843/0.357 ms
PING 190.128.0.1 (190.128.0.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 190.128.0.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=54 time=218.329 ms
64 bytes from 190.128.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=221.990 ms
64 bytes from 190.128.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=218.104 ms
64 bytes from 190.128.0.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=218.576 ms
64 bytes from 190.128.0.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=218.106 ms

--- 190.128.0.1 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 218.104/219.021/221.990/1.495 ms

i think the lesson here, as it was from last month's
test by cymru, is that it would be good if folk tested
that it worked before announcing.

randy