www.worldnet.att.net Network not in table

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Is anyone else having difficulty reaching ATT's Worldnet?

traceroute to www.worldnet.att.net (204.127.43.37), 30 hops max, 40 byte
packets
1 e3-4.aggr2.bwi1.network.coloco.com (199.34.53.129) 1.769 ms 1.869 ms
1.777 ms
2 fa3-0.core1.bwi1.network.coloco.com (198.180.62.134) 2.162 ms 1.752
ms 1.836 ms
3 dca1-lan2-g6-0-102.cidera.net (208.184.7.229) 2.706 ms 3.114 ms
3.328 ms
4 dca1-lan2-g6-0-102.cidera.net (208.184.7.229) 2.566 ms !H * *
C

2

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 17:30:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sean Donelan

Is anyone else having difficulty reaching ATT's Worldnet?

route-server>show ip bgp 204.127.43.37
% Network not in table

oregon-ix reports ASN 4181 originating 0/0. On borders I
maintain, I see "not in table".

Eddy

3

So far as I know, www.worldnet.att.net is intended to be reachable only
from Worldnet dialups. 204.127.0.0/17 is not advertised to the Internet
at large. www.att.net is in 204.127.128.0/17 and is reachable from
anywhere.

4

>
>
> Is anyone else having difficulty reaching ATT's Worldnet?
>
> traceroute to www.worldnet.att.net (204.127.43.37), 30 hops max, 40 byte
> packets

So far as I know, www.worldnet.att.net is intended to be reachable only
from Worldnet dialups. 204.127.0.0/17 is not advertised to the Internet
at large. www.att.net is in 204.127.128.0/17 and is reachable from
anywhere.

If so is (which appears to be the case), for what reason is the (global) DNS
populated with corresponding data? Somewhat harmless, but fairly easy to
clean
up (via, for example, DNS configuration views) -- for making things more
beautiful.

Cheers,

mh

5

I've never been a fan of split DNS views, because it makes assumptions
about what DNS servers people are using. What if a worldnet customer,
say, wants to run a recursive named on his own machine, and handle his
own lookups? Then he is, necessarily, going to get the "global" view
all the time, even when he's dialed in to Worldnet. So it makes sense
for "only reachable from worldnet" stuff to be globally viewable.

And what if you're connected to multiple "private" networks, each with
their own DNS, at once? Then you've got to pick which private names
you want to see, and point at the appropriate DNS ...

I realize a lot of organizations split up their DNS views (and because
of NAT, some pretty much have to) ... but I've always been of the
opinion that a single DNS is the way to go -- it eliminates all the
"well, you can only see that name if you're using this DNS" problems.

     -- Brett

6

>
> > So far as I know, www.worldnet.att.net is intended to be
reachable only
> > from Worldnet dialups. 204.127.0.0/17 is not advertised to
the Internet
> > at large. www.att.net is in 204.127.128.0/17 and is reachable from
> > anywhere.
>
> If so is (which appears to be the case), for what reason is the
> (global) DNS populated with corresponding data? Somewhat harmless,
> but fairly easy to clean up (via, for example, DNS configuration
> views) -- for making things more beautiful.

I've never been a fan of split DNS views, because it makes assumptions
about what DNS servers people are using.

OK. Right.

What if a worldnet customer,
say, wants to run a recursive named on his own machine, and handle his
own lookups? Then he is, necessarily, going to get the "global" view
all the time, even when he's dialed in to Worldnet. So it makes sense
for "only reachable from worldnet" stuff to be globally viewable.

OK. But I'd guess most people (like myself, from time to time) would rather
run a local one forwarding requests to a suitably close (my upstream's) one?
(Depends on who you are and how you connect, of course.)

And what if you're connected to multiple "private" networks, each with
their own DNS, at once? Then you've got to pick which private names
you want to see, and point at the appropriate DNS ...

From memory, you could configure (Bind) with forwarding type zones. This

would
allow you to recurse locally except for the zones of your "private" choice
or
forward all but these "private" one's to a global server of your choice.

I realize a lot of organizations split up their DNS views (and because
of NAT, some pretty much have to) ... but I've always been of the
opinion that a single DNS is the way to go -- it eliminates all the
"well, you can only see that name if you're using this DNS" problems.

mh