well, actually this was the IP address used for l.root-servers.net
from 1998-2008. so i guess you could say its never been used for anything.
we are not currently routing that prefix and there should currently be nothing
at that IP address.
--bill
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 06:24:21PM
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 10:00:41AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 8:48 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:08:10PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On 9/2/08, Todd Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
checking our current data, that block is
Hello all,
While recently trying to debug a CEF issue, I found a good number of
packets in my debug cef drops output that were all directed at
198.32.64.12 (which I see as being allocated to ep.net but completely
unused).
Sep 2 22:03:25: CEF-Drop: Packet for 198.32.64.12 -- no route
Sep 2
My profile and resume: http://www.linkedin.com/in/gadievron
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Hello all,
While recently trying to debug a CEF issue, I found a good number of packets
in my debug cef drops output that were all directed at 198.32.64.12 (which
I see as being
On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Hello all,
While recently trying to debug a CEF issue, I found a good number of
packets in my debug cef drops output that were all directed at
198.32.64.12 (which I see as being allocated to ep.net but
completely unused).
Sep
Gadi,
Could you please take the self-promotion offline already? Enough is
enough! I don't think anybody on this list is interested in hiring
you or reviewing your resume!
(It could be argued that my post is off-topic as well. I disagree.
Furthermore, it had to be done, given the lack of
On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
While recently trying to debug a CEF issue, I found a good number of
packets in my debug cef drops output that were all directed at
198.32.64.12 (which I see as being allocated to ep.net but
completely unused).
As Steve Conte
dan,
(to follow up on david conrad's response)...
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 04:31:40PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
While recently trying to debug a CEF issue, I found a good number of
packets in my debug cef drops output that were
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My profile and resume: http://www.linkedin.com/in/gadievron
are you for real?
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Aaron Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Gadi Evron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My profile and resume: http://www.linkedin.com/in/gadievron
are you for real?
No, he is not.
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:40:38 -0400
Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SNIP]
Just so that I am clear on your issue here: You believe it is okay
for you to put your linkedin URL in your .sig, but Gadi must not be
allowed to put it at the top of a post?
Yes, I think that's
On 9/2/08, Todd Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
checking our current data, that block is not currently routed by any
of our peers over the last month (i would assume ripe ris and
routeviews report similar data, but i did not check them.
it's also probably worth stating that parts of
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:40:38 -0400
Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SNIP]
Just so that I am clear on your issue here: You believe it is okay
for you to put your linkedin URL in your .sig, but Gadi must not be
allowed to put it at the
13 matches
Mail list logo
