From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Faylor To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: overseers@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Visited http://www.orbs.org/ recently? Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 06:08:00 -0000 Message-id: <20000717202902.A28247@cygnus.com> References: <20000717164705.A26134@shell17.ba.best.com> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00776.html On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 02:27:39AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Jason Molenda wrote: >> Paul Vixie et al, according to the ORBS page. >> >> I don't know... I don't know Vixie at all, but I've always thought >> of him as a non-moron, and the things that the ORBS page allege >> seem moronic. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions without any more >> information. I can't help but think that someone has hacked the >> ORBS page and stuck it there as a joke or something. > >Nope. And Vixie, well, read yourself: > > [Abovenet] readvertise the /16 which ORBS's upstream provider advertises > to Abovenet. [...] Now, the fact is, Abovenet is pretty good, and so > the /16 they readvertise is going to be the preferred path for a lot of > folks to reach ORBS's upstream and therefore ORBS itself. > And, since Abovenet does not route for ORBS even though they readvertise > the /16 advertised to them by ORBS's upstream, ORBS loses some amount of > connectivity due to Abovenet's nonrouting of ORBS. > >The last sentence is the crucial one: Abovenet does not provide access to >ORBS (website,...) to its own customers, but it also readvertises routes >to ORBS to its peers/downstreams and then sinks them in its internal >network. > >Unbelievable, but true. > >(You might want to check with your providers and ask them to overrule >this via static routes. I already did so over a month ago; now the >entire Austrian Academic Network routes around Abovenet to reach ORBS.) Is there a reason for this vendetta beyond the alleged commercial one? cgf From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Faylor To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: overseers@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Visited http://www.orbs.org/ recently? Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20000717202902.A28247@cygnus.com> References: <20000717164705.A26134@shell17.ba.best.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-q3/msg00067.html Message-ID: <20000717172900.MIMzr-Zay2NQt6VI8Tm3kNpccOcFUqYoWEqvgneOBRA@z> On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 02:27:39AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Jason Molenda wrote: >> Paul Vixie et al, according to the ORBS page. >> >> I don't know... I don't know Vixie at all, but I've always thought >> of him as a non-moron, and the things that the ORBS page allege >> seem moronic. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions without any more >> information. I can't help but think that someone has hacked the >> ORBS page and stuck it there as a joke or something. > >Nope. And Vixie, well, read yourself: > > [Abovenet] readvertise the /16 which ORBS's upstream provider advertises > to Abovenet. [...] Now, the fact is, Abovenet is pretty good, and so > the /16 they readvertise is going to be the preferred path for a lot of > folks to reach ORBS's upstream and therefore ORBS itself. > And, since Abovenet does not route for ORBS even though they readvertise > the /16 advertised to them by ORBS's upstream, ORBS loses some amount of > connectivity due to Abovenet's nonrouting of ORBS. > >The last sentence is the crucial one: Abovenet does not provide access to >ORBS (website,...) to its own customers, but it also readvertises routes >to ORBS to its peers/downstreams and then sinks them in its internal >network. > >Unbelievable, but true. > >(You might want to check with your providers and ask them to overrule >this via static routes. I already did so over a month ago; now the >entire Austrian Academic Network routes around Abovenet to reach ORBS.) Is there a reason for this vendetta beyond the alleged commercial one? cgf