- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design fo r In ternet Services
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 07 Aug '05

07 Aug '05

I realize that CALEA is primarily geared towards traditional wiretapping (esp. pen register), but given the machinations of other organaizations (which have also mobilzed law enforcement) such as the MPAA and the RIAA, one might also surmise that this also seems to be desired for not just VoIP services.... - ferg -- sjk <sjk(a)dredel.com> wrote: We all pay the bill with higher equipment costs, the maintenance of configurations, and possible storage costs. CALEA was bound to include VoIP services - given the definition telecom carrier in the act; however, as I recall -- and I may be wrong -- when CALEA was first passed the carriers were given tax breaks and subsidies to implement changes. Is such financial help being offered today? --sjk -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

Why some of us are IPv6 holdouts (Was: /8 end user assignment?)
by Michael Loftis 06 Aug '05

06 Aug '05

--On August 5, 2005 11:13:13 AM +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch(a)muada.com> wrote: > Is there any particular reason why a service over IPv6 couldn't be load > balanced by putting a good number of AAAA records in the DNS? Since most > IPv6-capable browsers have decent support for trying multiple addresses, > the problem of having a server be unavailable but still be in the DNS > wouldn't be as bad as in IPv4. Two things. First it would be just as bad. The problem isn't whether-or-not browsers try multiple addresses, teh problem is load is not distributed in a predictable manner. The other part of the problem is that it takes many many seconds for a browser to figure out that a server is down. Finally I personally don't want to expose all of my back end web servers to every joe schmoe. Yes our customers if they were inventive enough could figure it out (or just ask if they had a reason to need to know them) but I worry less about them. Security through obscurity? Not really...View it as limiting your exposure. It's like putting a locked door behind a gate, at the back of a building, instead of the front. If you've got the key to use it (port 80 HTTP request) it'll work, but it's easier to just use the open front door. Plus noones liable to lock the front door up from the inside on you ;) > Obviously when people running these services refuse to consider IPv6 > because they can't load balance doesn't provide much incentive to load > balance vendors to upgrade their stuff. I'd guess rather the opposite if these same people are mentioning this to their VARs and the equipment manufacturers. Mostly I use LVS based stuff for load balancing which means I'm more or less IPv6 ready. The problem is it's another set of firewall rules and address space I have to maintain, document, account for, filter (for bad guys, or abusers), etc. There's a huge knock-on-effect on all manner of things that you might not expect to need to think about IPv6 offhand. Like log processors. I don't know about you but I don't have humans or chimps reading my logs for suspicious activity and producing summary reports of traffic, I've got automated processes. I'm not willing to wager that every one of those programs is ready yet. As for the 'map inbound ipv6 to ipv4' argument...ok...but depending on the setup, you'll lose a lot of your accounting and tracking features on the end hosts because everything will appear to come from the mapped address. Depending, obviously, on how you're implementing your load balancing. I'm just speaking for the few cases that I've deployed in this manner, not for anyone else, that doesn't mean what I'm saying doesn't apply for anyone else (it probably does). All of that will require some set of workarounds to make sure you know where traffic came from/was going to. Maybe I'm more concerned about what (potentially bad) things happen on my networks. Maybe not. Either way, that issue alone means a LOT of other software than the web server, load balancer, and routers need to understand (or speak) IPv6. There's a huge ecosystem of software here. A lot of it hasn't been written in such a way that it takes into account any other addressing/networking scheme than IPv4.

2 2

Fiber cut in SJ
by George William Herbert 06 Aug '05

06 Aug '05

So... is mail not getting in/out from Nanog right now, or is the fairly major fiber cut in San Jose not newsworthy on the operational list anymore....? -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com / gherbert(a)taos.com / gherbert(a)webex.com

2 1

Re: Fiber cut in SJ
by William Petrisko 06 Aug '05

06 Aug '05

> ----- Forwarded message from George William Herbert <gherbert(a)retro.com> ----- > > So... is mail not getting in/out from Nanog right now, > or is the fairly major fiber cut in San Jose not newsworthy > on the operational list anymore....? Should be :) L3 fiber cut in SJC/Sunnyvale area, 552 pairs, ETR 4:45 GMT. bill

1 0

Re: /8 end user assignment?
by Brandon Butterworth 05 Aug '05

05 Aug '05

> Why should content providers be at all interested in driving v6 usage? Only if there are people on V6 that can't get to our V4 services, otherwise we're just doing it for the good of the net > They are interested in meeting demand, innovating, collecting > ad revenue, etc. The ROI to the given content provider is what? > There ARE more important things to spend one's limited resources on. But we could trade putting content on V6 for them if they make their network do multicast for us. Deal? brandon

2 1

RFC for Mask/Gateway
by Scott Altman 05 Aug '05

05 Aug '05

Apologies upfront for my not being able to successfully google this on my own... Is there an RFC or other standard that specifies that IPv4 connected devices must support the concepts of Subnet Mask and Default Gateway? I have a kludgy (<- technical term) vendor that has developed a custom AP that only has an IP address. Whilst cleaning up our network and turning off proxy-arp, lo and behold, it isn't really all that functional anymore. Thanks in advance, replies off-list welcome. - Scott

4 5

RIP: small DSL ISPs in the US
by David Conrad 05 Aug '05

05 Aug '05

FCC just decided ILECs don't need to share lines. http://www.fcc.gov/meetings/080505/sharing.pdf (1.8M PDF) Sigh. Rgds, -drc

1 0

Weekly Routing Table Report
by Routing Table Analysis 05 Aug '05

05 Aug '05

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfs(a)cisco.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 06 Aug, 2005 Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 167801 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 96506 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 81293 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 20239 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 17643 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 8332 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2596 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 74 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.6 Max AS path length visible: 26 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 17 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 14 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 1400107285 Equivalent to 83 /8s, 115 /16s and 241 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 37.8 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 56.9 Percentage of available address space allocated: 66.4 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 79600 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 34877 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 15745 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 32719 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 16294 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2322 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 683 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 345 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 17 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 192605568 Equivalent to 11 /8s, 122 /16s and 237 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 71.5 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911 APNIC Address Blocks 58/7, 60/7, 124/7, 126/8, 202/7, 210/7, 218/7, 220/7 and 222/8 ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 89702 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 54700 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 70083 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 25956 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 10139 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 3751 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 948 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 4.3 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 20 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 255222037 Equivalent to 15 /8s, 54 /16s and 97 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 63.4 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863 ARIN Address Blocks 24/8, 63/8, 64/6, 68/7, 70/6, 74/7, 76/8, 198/7, 204/6, 208/7 and 216/8 RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 32376 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 22109 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 29392 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 19770 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 6946 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 3665 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1131 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.2 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 26 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 213666944 Equivalent to 12 /8s, 188 /16s and 76 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 63.7 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839 RIPE Address Blocks 62/8, 80/5, 88/6, 188/8, 193/8, 194/7, 212/7 and 217/8 LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 9172 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 3168 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 7525 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 4493 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 631 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 196 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 119 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 5.2 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 23 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 20777472 Equivalent to 1 /8s, 61 /16s and 10 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 31.0 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 189/8, 190/8, 200/7 AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 1651 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 784 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 1006 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 769 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 133 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 37 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 16 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.6 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 12 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 2357504 Equivalent to 0 /8s, 35 /16s and 249 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 7.0 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 196/8 APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4134 954 5521 192 CHINANET-BACKBONE 1221 766 1326 527 Telstra Pty Ltd 9583 753 77 14 Sify Limited 4755 673 259 65 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 4766 590 3412 278 Korea Telecom (KIX) 7545 515 108 72 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 17676 463 6707 98 Softbank BB Corp. 9443 382 82 77 Primus Telecommunications 9929 344 224 46 China Netcom Corp. 9498 340 83 61 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 2907 337 1789 314 SINET Japan 17557 324 23 156 Pakistan Telecom 7474 316 273 218 SingTel Optus Pty Ltd 4802 298 53 164 Wantree Development 18302 295 109 158 SK Global co., Ltd 9837 278 79 181 Powertel Ltd 17488 272 16 8 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 17974 269 65 14 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 703 254 262 207 UUNET - Commercial IP service 9800 250 390 64 CHINA UNICOM ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 7018 1501 6402 968 AT&T WorldNet Services 4323 1141 688 220 Time Warner Telecom 174 1118 5825 1034 Cogent Communications 721 1082 21779 312 DLA Systems Automation Center 701 1018 8173 863 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 6197 940 497 447 BellSouth Network Solutions, 2386 893 528 656 AT&T Data Communications Serv 1239 871 2863 629 Sprint 18566 833 224 7 Covad Communications 20115 651 499 322 Charter Communications 209 621 3470 489 Qwest 3356 584 10697 448 Level 3 Communications, LLC 27364 554 44 18 Armstrong Cable Services 3602 550 125 105 Sprint Canada, Inc. 3561 532 2384 420 Savvis 22773 508 1188 23 Cox Communications, Inc. 5668 501 115 23 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, 6198 467 396 224 BellSouth Network Solutions, 852 457 1093 384 Telus Advanced Communications 7132 451 4705 386 SBC Internet Services RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 702 593 1999 483 UUNET - Commercial IP service 3301 299 1081 285 TeliaNet Sweden 3320 292 3232 241 Deutsche Telekom AG 8220 262 472 258 COLT Telecommunications 680 245 2041 241 DFN-IP service G-WiN 3246 230 469 223 Song Networks 8708 228 262 214 Romania Data Systems S.A. 1257 196 712 174 SWIPnet Swedish IP Network 5515 181 778 127 Sonera Solution Autonomous Sy 5400 177 289 149 BT Ignite European Backbone 6746 176 49 154 Dynamic Network Technologies, 786 174 1794 174 The JANET IP Service 3269 169 1520 72 TELECOM ITALIA 719 168 340 100 LANLINK autonomous system 8866 163 20 7 Bulgarian Telecommunication C 3300 155 184 89 AUCS Communications Services 9121 154 274 42 TTnet Autonomous System 6830 149 665 32 UPC Distribution Services 25186 143 145 100 France Telecom Transpac's Tra 8551 140 120 20 Bezeq International LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 380 599 160 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 16814 265 16 7 NSS, S.A. 11172 240 99 59 Servicios Alestra S.A de C.V 6147 192 110 21 Telefonica Del Peru 11664 181 20 23 Keytech SA 14117 152 9 5 Telefonica del Sur S.A. 7303 144 69 18 Telecom Argentina Stet-France 22047 143 112 7 VTR PUNTO NET S.A. 19632 142 14 5 Metropolis Intercom S.A. 11556 131 64 3 Cable-Wireless Panama 6505 130 90 87 Global One Communicaoes Ltda 19169 119 7 25 Telconet 6503 115 148 76 AVANTEL, S.A. 13999 112 52 9 Mega Cable S.A. de C.V. 18822 110 7 14 TELEFONICA MANQUEHUE 10481 101 40 7 Prima S.A. 21826 101 13 18 INTERCABLE 22927 97 81 26 TELEFONICA DE ARGENTINA 23216 96 24 21 RAMtelecom Telecomunicaciones 5639 95 12 9 Telecommunications Services o AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 3741 263 621 221 The Internet Solution 5536 120 15 17 Internet Egypt Network 8452 99 32 8 TEDATA 2018 96 295 87 Tertiary Education Network 2905 76 266 68 The Internetworking Company o 24835 57 34 6 RAYA Telecom - Egypt 20928 56 16 2 Noor Advanced Technologies AS 6713 51 54 8 Itissalat Al-MAGHRIB 15475 49 84 4 Nile Online 9129 42 3 3 UUNET Kenya 5713 39 148 31 Telkom SA Ltd 12455 36 6 3 Jambonet Autonomous system 15706 31 8 3 Sudatel Internet Exchange Aut 8524 25 1 4 AUCEGYPT Autonomous System 16637 22 10 19 Johnnic e-Ventures 23889 20 5 9 MAURITIUS TELECOM 10798 19 1 11 Standard Bank of South Africa 12258 17 3 11 Vodacom Internet Company 15808 17 2 2 Communication Solutions Ltd i 21491 17 1 1 UTL On-line is RF broadband I Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 4323 1141 921 Time Warner Telecom 18566 833 826 Covad Communications 721 1082 770 DLA Systems Automation Center 4134 954 762 CHINANET-BACKBONE 9583 753 739 Sify Limited 4755 673 608 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 27364 554 536 Armstrong Cable Services 6197 940 493 BellSouth Network Solutions, 22773 508 485 Cox Communications, Inc. 5668 501 478 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, 3602 550 445 Sprint Canada, Inc. 7545 515 443 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 17676 463 365 Softbank BB Corp. 6467 433 360 E.Spire Communications, Inc. 20115 651 329 Charter Communications 19262 436 320 Verizon Global Networks 4766 590 312 Korea Telecom (KIX) 11492 312 306 Cable One 9443 382 305 Primus Telecommunications 9929 344 298 China Netcom Corp. List of Unregistered ASNs (Global) ---------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 64826 PRIVATE 64.200.250.0/23 7911 Williams Communicati 65050 PRIVATE 168.96.148.0/24 6140 ImpSat 65507 PRIVATE 200.0.64.0/24 27750 Cooperación Latino A 65004 PRIVATE 200.0.113.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 65004 PRIVATE 200.4.0.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 65004 PRIVATE 200.4.1.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 65004 PRIVATE 200.4.2.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 65004 PRIVATE 200.4.3.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 65004 PRIVATE 200.4.4.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 65004 PRIVATE 200.4.5.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 65004 PRIVATE 200.4.6.0/24 28477 Universidad Autonoma 65142 PRIVATE 200.32.76.0/24 6140 ImpSat 65142 PRIVATE 200.32.77.0/24 6140 ImpSat 64512 PRIVATE 200.61.48.0/20 11664 Keytech SA 64512 PRIVATE 200.61.58.0/23 11664 Keytech SA 64512 PRIVATE 200.80.148.0/23 11664 Keytech SA 65005 PRIVATE 203.200.197.0/24 4755 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 132.0.0.0/10 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 137.0.0.0/13 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 158.0.0.0/13 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 172.32.0.0/24 7011 Citizens Utilities 192.43.230.0/24 7575 Australian Academic and Rease 192.44.0.0/24 5501 Fraunhofer Gesellschaft 192.44.0.0/19 702 UUNET - Commercial IP service 192.70.164.0/24 25689 National Research Council of 192.84.205.0/24 719 LANLINK autonomous system 192.119.135.0/24 270 NASA 192.135.50.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Services 192.169.0.0/23 3970 RGnet, Inc. 192.172.0.0/19 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 192.200.100.0/24 7018 AT&T WorldNet Services Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:17 /9:3 /10:8 /11:15 /12:75 /13:167 /14:317 /15:608 /16:8468 /17:2674 /18:4541 /19:10566 /20:11570 /21:9593 /22:13026 /23:13915 /24:91182 /25:373 /26:312 /27:179 /28:50 /29:29 /30:77 /31:0 /32:36 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 18566 817 833 Covad Communications 6197 767 940 BellSouth Network Solutions, 7018 706 1501 AT&T WorldNet Services 2386 604 893 AT&T Data Communications Serv 9583 570 753 Sify Limited 27364 545 554 Armstrong Cable Services 4323 541 1141 Time Warner Telecom 4766 408 590 Korea Telecom (KIX) 5668 405 501 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, 702 365 593 UUNET - Commercial IP service 19916 363 370 OLM LLC 1239 362 871 Sprint 6198 342 467 BellSouth Network Solutions, 7011 330 382 Citizens Utilities 11492 304 312 Cable One 6517 296 318 Yipes Communications, Inc. 15270 296 320 PaeTec.net -a division of Pae 6467 287 433 E.Spire Communications, Inc. 20115 283 651 Charter Communications 18302 280 295 SK Global co., Ltd Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 4:7 8:23 9:1 12:1557 13:1 15:9 16:2 17:3 18:3 20:4 24:967 30:2 32:70 33:1 38:139 40:55 44:4 47:2 52:4 55:2 56:3 57:23 58:143 59:60 60:71 61:727 62:679 63:1887 64:2815 65:2097 66:2956 67:574 68:571 69:1138 70:153 71:13 72:285 80:598 81:559 82:442 83:294 84:225 85:296 86:76 87:24 128:158 129:168 130:88 131:293 132:38 133:1 134:145 135:42 136:137 137:70 138:165 139:61 140:399 141:104 142:144 143:141 144:196 145:34 146:291 147:110 148:291 149:177 150:106 151:65 152:108 153:89 154:5 155:141 156:77 157:100 158:167 159:168 160:82 161:71 162:219 163:95 164:188 165:192 166:153 167:241 168:436 169:145 170:328 171:8 172:1 190:1 192:5737 193:3239 194:2428 195:1588 196:650 198:3871 199:3293 200:4083 201:230 202:5981 203:6389 204:3791 205:2039 206:2451 207:2820 208:2044 209:3347 210:1638 211:740 212:1255 213:1328 214:273 215:32 216:3640 217:1118 218:212 219:179 220:422 221:237 222:123 End of report

1 0

FCC puts DSL on same footing as cable service
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 05 Aug '05

05 Aug '05

Marguerite Reardon writes in the C|Net News Broadband Blog: [snip] The Federal Communications Commission on Friday did away with old rules that require phone companies to share their infrastructure with Internet service providers. The new framework puts DSL service in line with cable modem services. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC's interpretation of cable modem service as an "information" service, which means it isn't required to share its infrastructure with competitors. The new rules could hurt ISPs such as EarthLink, which will be forced to negotiate wholesale deals with existing DSL providers. But DSL providers won't get off scott free. DSL providers will still be required to comply with wire tapping rules and disability requirements. And DSL providers will still contribute to the Universal Service Fund, at least for the next 270 days until the FCC can figure out another way to keep USF funded. [snip] http://news.com.com/2061-10785_3-5820294.html - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

RE: Traffic to our customer's address(126.0.0.0/8) seems blocked by packet filter
by Peter Lothberg 05 Aug '05

05 Aug '05

> > You can ping to 126.66.0.30/8. > and how does one ping a /8? > randy Just send 2^(24) ping packets! (not?) -P

1 0