Could someone from AS7018 (AT&T) please contact me about a
route you are originating that is hijacking/blackholing traffic?
The route is:
66.235.248.0/22
- Kevin
Mike Donahue wrote:
Hi. I'm by no means an ip/networking expert, and we're having some
difficulty communicating with the boffins at AT&T. Any
input/advice/translation would be appreciated.
We own our own class C netblock. Our previous provider, Sprint, had no
problem "adding" it to their net
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 24 dec 2007, at 20:00, Kevin Loch wrote:
RA/Autoconf won't work at all for some folks with deployed server
infra,
That's just IPv4 uptightness. As long as you don't change your MAC
address you'll get the same IPv6 address every time,
Christopher Morrow wrote:
RA/Autoconf won't work at all for some folks with deployed server
infra, all they want is a method to get a static addr on a box and
route properly. Perhaps RA gets them the 'route properly' part easily
enough but I can imagine places where that is even turned off.
I
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Sucks to be them. If they do not have enough PA space to meet the RIR
minima, the community has decided they're not "worthy" of a slot in the
DFZ by denying them PI space.
Not true, there is an ARIN policy that allows you to get a /24 from one
of your providers even if
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
How exactly are you going to get out-of-order packets over a single link?
There is a once popular router that has been known to do that in some
configurations due to multiple paths within the device.
- Kevin
Randy Bush wrote:
- 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers '
as an
Informational RFC
and what is good or bad about this representation? seems simple to me.
and having one notation seems reasonable. what am i missing?
Using '.' as a delimiter will be somewhat annoying when
Kevin Day wrote:
If you include "Web hosting company" in your definition of ISP, that's
not true. Unless you're providing connectivity to 200 or more networks,
you can't get a /32. If all of your use is internal(fully managed
hosting) or aren't selling leased lines or anything, you are not
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Pim van Pelt:
Hi, here's a member of 'the folks at bit.nl'. Just a quick note to
say that we have been sourcing IPv4 packets from 192.88.99.1 at a rate
of 2.000 to 10.000 packets per second since early 2003, so I'm guessing
we have sent some 750.000 billion packets by
Kevin Day wrote:
We wouldn't have met the proposed 2005-1
requirements for a /44 (we don't come close to 100,000 devices), and
lose functionality if we're required to advertise it through a single
aggregated address.
The high requirements of the "current" 2005-1 were so thoroughly
rejected
Kevin Day wrote:
9) Once we started publishing records for a few sites, we started
getting complaints from some users that they couldn't reach the sites.
It is possible that a broken 6to4 relay somewhere was causing problems.
Running your own local 6to4 relay (rfc3068) will improve perf
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Enjoy scanning, even I and I guess the rest of this list will be long
time retired and sipping pina coladas and other good stuff (hot
chocolate milk with whipcream and baileys anyone? :) in hawaii or some
other heavenly place the day that the hardware and pipes are available
Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Fred Baker wrote:
> While I think /32, /48, /56, and /64 are reasonable prefix lengths
> for what they are proposed for, I have this feeling of early
> fossilization when it doesn't necessarily make sense.
Yeah, that's what seems imp
Mark Smith wrote:
We didn't
get 48 bits because we needed them (although convenience is a need, if
it wasn't we'd still be hand winding our car engines to start them ). We
got them because it made doing other things much easier, such as (near)
guarantees of world wide unique NIC addresses, allow
Paul Jakma wrote:
And 6to4 obviously won't fly for long after the 4 tank runs dry.
Hopefully it won't need to at that point as it is only intended as
a transitional step.
I like the simplicity of 6to4 and the way it preserves end-to-end
addresses. If only there was a way to adapt it's stat
Mike Hyde wrote:
On the subject of ipv6, is there currently any way to multi-home with
IPv6 yet?
There has always been a way to multihome in IPv6. Announce
a prefix to two or more providers. As with IPv4, YMMV.
There is a proposal to allow direct IPv6 end site assignments
that will be con
Randy Bush wrote:
and don't you just love the suggestions of natting v6?
No, but I would like to see consumer routers support rfc3068 (automatic
6to4 tunneling) by default when there is no native IPv6
access service.
If we could convince manufacturers that rfc3068 is "NAT" for ipv6
they'll pr
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Certainly these are high-margin but low-bandwidth customers, maybe
with enough complaints Cogent will be willing to stick them on a smaller
seperate ASN which is willing to buy transit.
Does anyone have reachability data for c-root during this episode?
I wonder i
Roy Badami wrote:
And on that vein perhaps it's prudent for people using network
prefixes longer than /64 to take care to ensure that the bit positions
in the IPv6 address that should correspond to the u and g bits in the
modified EUI-64 interface ID (according to RFC 3513) are both set to
Is
Todd Underwood wrote:
where is the service that is available only on IPv6? i can't seem to
find it.
A better question would be "What services does the competition offer
via IPv6?" If the answer is "none" then how long will that
situation last? What point along the adoption curve do you want
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
I'd say fix the resolver to not try resolve v6 where there exists no
v6 connectivity
I'd say fix the broken v6 connectivity.
- Kevin
Paul Vixie wrote:
But
to consider a /40 minimum allocation size, you'd be saying that you thought
a table containing O(1e12) discrete destinations
Except that we are talking about allocations out of 2001::/16 which
yeilds a about
1e7 prefixes, not subtracting the huge chunks taken by /32 allocatio
to those who need it the most.
--
Kevin Loch
o.
I don't think we are going to find a "one size fits all" solution
to IPv6 multihoming.
As for renumbering, we all know that will be solved by some form of
address translation (like it or not).
--
Kevin Loch
iated (off-list).
--
Kevin Loch
4 bit prefixes are the mattress tags of IPv6 interfaces.
--
Kevin Loch
Nicole wrote:
In the past few days our AOL users have been reporting serious problems
Several Brickshelf users have complained about the new "blurry images"
problem using AOL. I have not heard any reports of broken images or
upload problems yet.
Kevin Loch
I
The NOAA links seem saturated... http://www.sec.noaa.gov/
I have a Solar Data page here:
http://n3kl.org/sun/noaa.html
And Solar status monitor images you can deep link on your own
page:
http://n3kl.org/sun/status.html
The above pages poll data from ftp.sec.noaa.gov, which is still
available.
K
"... in an attempt to assert a dubious right to regulate non-registry
services."
This explains everything. They don't believe the stability of
com and net are in any way related to their registry duties.
That quote alone should be sufficient to deny them custody of
com and net.
Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
What else does the IETF need to do here?
Recognize the legacy status of certain zones and establish strict
criteria for making configuration changes to them. This would
be in addition to any guidance for all zones with delegations.
KL
One thing that Y2K taught us was that programmers
do some really stupid things with hard coded "this
should never occur naturally" values. The year
'99' was used to trigger all kinds of interesting
things like erasing backup tapes, destroying inventory
and worse. It is not implausible that someon
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, September 15, 2003 7:34 pm
Subject: Re: What *are* they smoking?
>
> No, it accepts if the from domain exists - but only if it *REALLY*
> exists.
Anyone want to guess what happens to all those from addr
- Original Message -
From: Scott Fendley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, August 11, 2003 7:49 pm
Subject: Re: RPC errors and latest worm
> > " * Close port 135/tcp (and if possible 135-139, 445 and
> 593) ".
Is there a Windows service that uses port 136, or was it included b
- Original Message -
From: William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:39 am
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
>(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any
>telecommunications service.
>
> [no encryption, no steganography
- Original Message -
From: Jack Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, March 30, 2003 0:22 am
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
> > (Some DSL/cable companies try to charge per machine, and record
> the
> > machine address of the devices connected.)
>
> And to use NAT to circum
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
I repeat my suggestion that a number of DNS root-servers or gtld-servers
be renumbered into 69/8 space. If the DNS "breaks" for these neglected
networks, I suspect they will quickly get enough clue to fix their ACLs.
Nice idea in principal (from a purist point of view) bu
jnull wrote:
>
> A Sun server as a host for a OpenBSD source is like writing combinations
> to a bank vault on the back of your hand.
>
s/Sun server/university/
They get bonus points for this too:
> 220 merlin FTP server (SunOS 4.1) ready.
^^^
KL
Chris Woodfield wrote:
>...the next-best method is to probe HTTP ports, but we don't want to
> have to pull down thousands of web pages just to get performance stats.
Why not just passively measure the time it takes to send actual
traffic to actual clients? It shouldn't take too much talent
t
Lionel wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:53:58 +0100, James Cronin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> [opt-in bulk email]
> >Has anyone ever actually come across such a contract in real life
> >or are they just urban myths?
>
> Urban myth.
> If you make damn sure that you clearly mark your bulk
"Rubens Kuhl Jr." wrote:
>
> Spread-spectrum radio systems are not that easy to DoS, a good benefit from
> the original military applications.
Actually, at close range it should be trivial to Dos an 802.11 system.
Just
throw up a strong enough carrier anywhere within the receivers passband
and
40 matches
Mail list logo
