RE: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread Keith Medcalf
And thank god for that. Since Microsoft stopped diddle-farting with Windows 98 is was never infested with the UDP "Execute Payload with NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM" flag that appeared in all later versions of Windows TCP/IP stack. As Windows 98 worked on the day after Microsoft stopped diddling with

RE: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread Kate Gerry
In this example only semi-new devices with current OSes are accessing 172.16.0.0, concerns over old devices or a BSD4.2 machine hitting it is highly unlikely. To clarify Ryan's statement, the device in question is our software repository where we store OS software updates, for only recent

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread Ken Chase
Right - usage of network and broadcast addresses will suddenly make all the ToiletPaperLink devices upgrade themselves to a new firmware that the devs released posthaste to handle them properly... I like your upgrade-by-force ideas! (no, I do. Screw bad implimentations, let them be binned!)

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread Jason Kuehl
+1 for gross comment. On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Hunter Fuller wrote: > I think I'd rate this one as "gross but technically not breaking any rules > I suppose." (I couldn't find any at first glance, anyway.) > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:55 PM Ryan Hamel

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread Ryan Hamel
> At some point, some chucklehead is going to look at that .0.0 and mentally > think /16, and things will go pear-shaped pretty quickly Same for a /12, which is RFC1918. Original message From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu Date: 12/8/17 1:46 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Ryan Hamel

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread Ryan Hamel
I'm not implying HTTP, I'm implying a static route at each sites private layer 3 router (it'll move to BGP in the future). The repository server listens on the IP as well. My original question was the fact of using 172.16.0.0/32 as a usable IP address (not even caring about anycast).

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread Ryan Hamel
1. A single known ip address that redirects to the closest internal repo server. 172.16.0.0/32 redirects to a usable subnet ip in 172.16.xx.xx by static route. 2. Internal private network that is reachable by clients. Original message From: William Herrin

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread Job Snijders
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Ken Chase wrote: > why not use 192.0.2.0/24 addrs? > > lots of other ranges you could probably use safely. > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_IP_addresses > > Using .0 you're asking to exercise bugs and undefined implimentation choices

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread Ken Chase
why not use 192.0.2.0/24 addrs? lots of other ranges you could probably use safely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_IP_addresses Using .0 you're asking to exercise bugs and undefined implimentation choices of various tcp stacks and resolvers out there on myriad devices. Clever

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread William Herrin
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Ryan Hamel wrote: > > I'm not implying HTTP, I'm implying a static route at each sites private layer 3 router (it'll move to BGP in the future). The repository server listens on the IP as well. > > My original question was the fact of

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread William Herrin
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Ryan Hamel wrote: > 1. A single known ip address that redirects to the closest internal repo server. 172.16.0.0/32 redirects to a usable subnet ip in 172.16.xx.xx by static route. Hi Ryan, Maybe if would help if you write the extended

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread William Herrin
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Ryan Hamel wrote: > A colleague of mine has static routed 172.16.0.0/32 to a usable IP > address, to have a single known IP address be static routed to a regions > closest server. While I understand the IP address does work (pings and

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread Job Snijders
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 at 23:09, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > Nothing wrong with using xxx.0 or xxx::0 in the context of a host route >> (/32 or /128). >> > > note that in times past (perhaps even now

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread Christopher Morrow
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Job Snijders wrote: > Nothing wrong with using xxx.0 or xxx::0 in the context of a host route > (/32 or /128). > note that in times past (perhaps even now marked historical) there were platforms which got unhappy with network/broadcast

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread valdis . kletnieks
On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 03:13:57 +, Ryan Hamel said: > Greetings, > A colleague of mine has static routed 172.16.0.0/32 to a usable IP address, > to have a single known IP address be static routed to a regions closest > server. > While I understand the IP address does work (pings and what not),

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread Job Snijders
Nothing wrong with using xxx.0 or xxx::0 in the context of a host route (/32 or /128).

Re: Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread Hunter Fuller
I think I'd rate this one as "gross but technically not breaking any rules I suppose." (I couldn't find any at first glance, anyway.) On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 1:55 PM Ryan Hamel wrote: > Greetings, > > A colleague of mine has static routed 172.16.0.0/32 to a usable IP >

Static Routing 172.16.0.0/32

2017-12-08 Thread Ryan Hamel
Greetings, A colleague of mine has static routed 172.16.0.0/32 to a usable IP address, to have a single known IP address be static routed to a regions closest server. While I understand the IP address does work (pings and what not), I don't feel this should be the proper IP address used, but

Re: Poor speed to AWS

2017-12-08 Thread Luke
Hey Eric, have you tried contacting their NOC? amzn-noc-cont...@amazon.com https://peeringdb.com/net/1418 > On 7 Dec 2017, at 13:08, Eric Dugas wrote: > > Anyone from AWS can contact me off-list? We

Re: Qrator Radar - Peerings

2017-12-08 Thread Alexander Azimov
Job, thank you for the intro. :) Dear Mike, the radar project is operating its own BGP collector system which improves when we have more sessions and loses data, when BGP sessions are going down. While it's overall amount is constantly growing (it reached 400 a month ago), there are sessions that

Geolocation: IPv4 Subnet blocked by HULU, and others

2017-12-08 Thread Michael Crapse
I am a local WISP. And my customers have trouble reaching Hulu, Disney now, and previously netflix and amazon prime(both resolved). I have emailed, mailed, and called both HULU and Disney now to get my 196.53.96.0/22 subnet unblacklisted as a VPN provider(no longer so) from their services. They

Weekly Routing Table Report

2017-12-08 Thread Routing Analysis Role Account
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG, CaribNOG TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG, IRNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are

FCC Seeks Comment on 2017 Hurricane Season Response Efforts

2017-12-08 Thread Sean Donelan
PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON RESPONSE EFFORTS UNDERTAKEN DURING 2017 HURRICANE SEASON PS Docket No. 17-344 Comments Due: January 22, 2018 Reply Comments Due: February 21, 2018 https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-comment-2017-hurricane-season-response-efforts