Re: [swinog] Connectivity problems with .255 IP Adress
Hi Does anybody know of such a problem? Mr. Google couldn't give me any satisfactory results... :-) This looks like a common misconfiguration on multiple 'router' or 'firewalls' to filter such ip addresses. We also had to exclude all .255 and .0 ip addresses from our dhcp ranges because customers getting such addresses had troubles connecting to various services out there. Mit freundlichen Grüssen Benoit Panizzon -- I m p r o W a r e A G- __ Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 07 CH-4133 PrattelnFax +41 61 826 93 02 Schweiz Web http://www.imp.ch __ ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Connectivity problems with .255 IP Adress
Hi Mike! On 31.03.11 09:44, Mike Kellenberger wrote: One of our customers got a .255 IPv4 address assigned by sunrise. he can't reach any of our Windows Server 2003 hosts Sounds familiar. I had this problem with Windows 9x last time and avoided the usage of .255 and .0 since those days. Windows 2008 has a lot of improvements in the IP stack, so I'm not surprised when it works now. Beat -- \|/ Beat Rubischon b...@0x1b.ch ( 0-0 ) http://www.0x1b.ch/~beat/ oOO--(_)--OOo--- Meine Erlebnisse, Gedanken und Traeume: http://www.0x1b.ch/blog/ ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Connectivity problems with .255 IP Adress
On Thursday 31 March 2011 09:44:27 Mike Kellenberger wrote: One of our customers got a .255 IPv4 address assigned by sunrise. I know that this can be a valid host address with a netmask of /23 or greater, but the strange thing is, that he can't reach any of our Windows Server 2003 hosts with this IP. Windows Server 2008 Servers in the same subnet are no problem... Does anybody know of such a problem? Mr. Google couldn't give me any satisfactory results... :-) There is a old windows bug with .255, maybe it's still not solved. Regards Oli signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Kaputter Mailserver bei Bluewin
On 03/30/11 07:39 PM, Klaus Ethgen wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi, kann mal bitte einer von bluewin sich die Mailinfrastruktur ansehen. Alle Mails an Bluewin, selbst die an postmas...@bluewin.ch kommen als Bounce zurück, das relaying denied währe. (Alle über mxbw.bluewin.ch.) Gruß Klaus Ethgen Hi Klaus Can you contact me off list with the details? We're investigating this. Regards, Stefan ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Connectivity problems with .255 IP Adress
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Mike Kellenberger mike.kellenber...@escapenet.ch wrote: Hi Hi :) One of our customers got a .255 IPv4 address assigned by sunrise. I know that this can be a valid host address with a netmask of /23 or greater, but the strange thing is, that he can't reach any of our Windows Server 2003 hosts with this IP. Windows Server 2008 Servers in the same subnet are no problem... Does anybody know of such a problem? Mr. Google couldn't give me any satisfactory results... :-) Yes - Especially Windows machines seem to have a problem with .255 or .0, for that reason we have an exception in our DHCP-Daemon to exclude them. Regards, Mario ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Connectivity problems with .255 IP Adress
On Thu, 31 Mar 2011, Oliver Schad wrote: On Thursday 31 March 2011 09:44:27 Mike Kellenberger wrote: Does anybody know of such a problem? Mr. Google couldn't give me any satisfactory results... :-) There is a old windows bug with .255, maybe it's still not solved. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/281579 Yes, time to upgrade :) (via google: windows 2003 255 ip address) and then added kb. //Marcin ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Achtung: moegliche (Mail) Probleme durch Aenderung der Nameserver fuer .in-addr.arpa !
Hi,
due the change of the SOA Authority for the domains in-addr.arpa ip6.arpa
this is the running configuration for resolvers:
zone in-addr.arpa {
type slave;
file slave/in-addr.arpa.slave;
masters {
2001:67c:e0::1; // F.in-addr-servers.net.
193.0.9.1; // F.in-addr-servers.net.
};
notify no;
};
zone ip6.arpa {
type slave;
file slave/ip6.arpa.slave;
masters {
2001:67c:e0::2; // F.ip6-servers.arpa.
193.0.9.2; // F.ip6-servers.arpa.
};
notify no;
};
You can leave the others unchanged:
zone . {
type slave;
file slave/root.slave;
masters {
2001:7fd::1; // K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
2001:500:2f::f; // F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
193.0.14.129; // K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
192.5.5.241; // F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
};
notify no;
};
zone arpa {
type slave;
file slave/arpa.slave;
masters {
2001:7fd::1; // K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
2001:500:2f::f; // F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
193.0.14.129; // K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
192.5.5.241; // F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
};
notify no;
};
Cheers
Manfredo
-Original Message-
From: swinog-l...@dudes.ch
To: swinog@lists.swinog.ch
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:37:23 +0200
Subject: [swinog] Achtung: moegliche (Mail) Probleme durch Aenderung der
Nameserver fuer .in-addr.arpa !
Vor einiger Zeit ging ja eine Mail herum, dass die globalen Nameserver
fuer .in-addr.arpa aendern werden, dass dies aber keine Auswirkungen
auf den taeglichen Betrieb haben wuerde. Nun, es hatte...
Wer auf seinen Nameservern bislang den folgenden Code drin hatte, um
reverse Lookups zu beschleunigen, kann seit der Umstellung keine
reverse Lookups mehr ausfuehren:
zone . {
type slave;
file slave/root.slave;
masters {
192.5.5.241;// F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
};
notify no;
};
zone arpa {
type slave;
file slave/arpa.slave;
masters {
192.5.5.241;// F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
};
notify no;
};
zone in-addr.arpa {
type slave;
file slave/in-addr.arpa.slave;
masters {
192.5.5.241;// F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
};
notify no;
};
Dieser Bereich ist standardmaessig auf aktuellen FreeBSD Servern
auskommentiert, es wird in einem Kommentar aber empfohlen, ihn fuer
Nameservern mit hohem Verkehrsaufkommen zu aktivieren. Nach der
Umstellung der in-addr.arpa Zonen funktioniert das Slaving _NICHT_
mehr, auch nicht von den neuen Servern. Resultat: Reverse-Lookup
funktioniert nicht mehr.
Wer Mailserver betreibt, die auf einem gueltigen Reverse-Lookup
bestehen fuer eine einkommende Verbindung, wird ohne Anpassung seiner
Nameserver nun beginnen (je mehr gecachte Zonen expiren desto mehr)
einkommende Verbindungen abzuweisen, und dieses Abweisen wird zumindest
bei unserm Setup mit Relaying temporarily denied. Cannot resolve PTR
record for x.x.x.x begruendet.
Eventuell sind die vor kurzem beschriebenen Probleme, dass bluewin
seine eigenen Adressen nicht akzeptiert (mit relay denied) auf das
gleiche Problem zurueckzufuehren...
LG,
Markus
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Si precisa che le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio sono riservate e
ad uso esclusivo del destinatario. Qualora il presente messaggio Le fosse
pervenuto per errore, La invitiamo ad eliminarlo senza copiarlo ed a non
inoltrarlo a terzi, dandocene gentilmente comunicazione. Grazie.
You are hereby informed that this message contains confidential informations
intended for the addressee's use only. If yu're not the addressee and have
received this message by mistake, please delete it and immediately notify us.
You may not copy or disseminate this message to anyone. Thank you.
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] PCH survey on peering
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Howdy. We're conducting a statistical overview of peering sessions for a research paper. The paper we produce will be input into OECD guidelines on national communications regulatory frameworks, so we'd very much like it to accurately reflect the diversity of peering agreements out there in the world. At the same time, if we ask for too much data, people will be reluctant to answer our questions, so we've tried to keep the data we're collecting as simple as possible. Specifically, for each other Autonomous System you peer with, we'd be interested in knowing the following five pieces of information: Your ASN Your peer's ASN Whether a written and signed peering agreement exists (the alternative being that it's less formal, like a handshake agreement) Whether the terms are roughly symmetric (the alternative being that it describes an agreement with different terms for each of the two parties, like one paying the other, or one receiving more or fewer than full customer routes) If a jurisdiction of governing law is defined The easiest way for us to take the information is as a tab-text file or spreadsheet, consisting of rows as follows: Your ASN: Integer Peer ASN: Integer Written agreement: Boolean Symmetric: Boolean Governing Law: ISO 3166 two-digit country-code, or empty For instance: 42 tab 715 tab false tab true tab us cr 42 tab 3856 tab true tab true tab us cr The ASNs are just there so we can avoid double-counting a single pair of peers, when we hear from both of them. As soon as we've collated the data, we'll strip the ASNs to protect privacy, and only the final aggregate statistics will be published in any case. We've currently got about 10,000 sessions documented, and would love to have as many more as possible. We'd like to finish collecting data by the end of the second week of April, two weeks from now. If you're able to help us, please email me the data in whatever form you can. If you need a non-disclosure, we're happy to sign one. Thanks for considering this, -Bill Woodcock Research Director Packet Clearing House -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAk2UqpYACgkQGvQy4xTRsBGvowCgzXIkFOEfqj9BCgGkqhiv8AgF xGwAoLl69OQ8giYmnT6S7zwLBBu7XeYZ =D38f -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
