August 2004 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Verio NOC ?
by matthew zeier 02 Aug '04

02 Aug '04

How does a non-customer contact Verio's NOC? I can't get through their phone maze without an account number and emails bounce back because I didn't include a valid account number in the subject :| -- matthew zeier - "Curiosity is a willing, a proud, an eager confession of ignorance." - Leonard Rubenstein

4 4

New IANA IPv4 allocation for ARIN (71/8, 72/8)
by Doug Barton 02 Aug '04

02 Aug '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings, This is to inform you that the IANA has allocated the following two (2) IPv4 /8 blocks to ARIN: 071/8 Aug 04 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 072/8 Aug 04 ARIN (whois.arin.net) For a full list of IANA IPv4 allocations please see: <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space> - -- Doug Barton General Manager, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBDuAYwtDPyTesBYwRAq9aAJ99l6Pib51qvGRgYuPam+jFv/TBOgCeNcFI d0lRn5E983SPgV/Ag9xnAZM= =qqA2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: problems with covad.net 192.168 address space
by Robert Bonomi 02 Aug '04

02 Aug '04

> From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Mon Aug 2 17:30:06 2004 > Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:25:00 -0400 > From: Eric Kimminau <ekimminau(a)rainfinity.com> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: problems with covad.net 192.168 address space > > > Hola! > > Anyone having problems with covad.net and 192.168 public broadcasts? Covad uses some RFC-1918 space internally, for routers, etc. Nothing unusual there. They are known to use the low part of the 172.16.0.0/12 space for the PPP links betwen CPE and DSLAM, and the high part of the same space for the 'upstream gateway'. They use 192.168.0.0/16 for internal routing. They do not use 'Net 10' _at_all_. A traceroute from my home network goes from my dsl modem/router to a 172.31.x.x address; then through two 192.168.x.x addresses, And then to the public internet. Covad does NOT filter *any* RFC-1918 _source_address_ packets from going _to_ their customers. I've had some lengthy discussions with their abuse desk about this, when my firewall has blocked/logged hostile *incoming* packets with RFC-1918 source addresses. For "some strange reason" they can't tell, _or_track_, where those packets are coming from. I'm told they _do_ have RFC-1918 ingress and egress filtering for both source and destination addresses, at their gateways to the _external_ internet. That -that- filtering means that the stuff that shows up 'at _my_ front door' *is* coming from another COVAD customer, and not from "somewhere _outside_ Covad's network".

1 0

problems accessing 128.171.*
by Brian Russo 02 Aug '04

02 Aug '04

Is anyone else having problems accessing 128.171.* (hawaii.edu) - bri -- Recursivity. Call back if it happens again.

3 3

ATT Worldnet Mail Contact?
by Mike Lyon 02 Aug '04

02 Aug '04

Could someone from ATT Worldnet who has access to blacklist info please contact me offlist? Thank You, Mike

1 0

Test, please ignore
by Michael Hallgren 01 Aug '04

01 Aug '04

test

1 0

RE: Quick question.
by Michel Py 01 Aug '04

01 Aug '04

> Michael Loftis wrote: > Eh really? Whenever I've lost a second CPU (primary or secondary) > the machine was a brick until the secondary CPU was gutted and for > Piii slotted systems a terminator board was installed in the > secondary slot. That was with PIIs, PPros and PIIIs; and not always. When I said "Xeon" I assumed a P4 Xeon; nobody's sold PIII system for a while. I have seen number of PII and PIII dual-capable motherboards that work with one CPU without a processor terminator though, including the very successful slot-1 440BX and 440GX based workhorses (that power the majority of PII and PIII Xeons). Since the 7501 Intel chipset, BIOSes are able to detect processor failures all the time, apparently. (O/T) that's why I avoid RDRAM like the plague too: does not work without a terminator in unused slots. AFAIC, the main annoyance of dual-capable mobos with single processors has historically been that you needed to install M$ with two processors if you wanted to upgrade to dual-proc later; this has changed with hyperthreading, as now even single-processor systems are seen by Windows as a duallie. > What motherboard(s) you using that are holding up to failures > like this? The last two failures I can remember were an Intel whitebox with SE7501BR2 motherboard and a Dell mobo also based on the 7501 (can't remember the P/N) (some Dell boards are close derivatives of the Intel design). For hardware I have touched myself recently, I can assure that none of the following require a processor terminator: http://indigo.intel.com/mbsg/details.aspx?compID=1915 http://indigo.intel.com/mbsg/details.aspx?compID=1887 Proliant DL380. I have tested numerous Tyan and Supermicro 7501 and 7505 boards as well and none required a processor terminator. I have never seen an AMD board that required terminators either. I plan to test the following two DDRII-400 7525 boards when released: http://www.tyan.com/products/html/thunderi7525.html http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon800/E7525/X6DA8-G2.cf m and they don't require terminators either. Terminators are a thing of the past; as a matter of fact, in California and especially in Sacramento they're called governators now. > My experience has shown PSU and motherboard failures are > faaaaar more common than CPUs. It used to be true, but not anymore. A 2.4 GHz Xeon currently _retails_ for $200 something (care to guess what the OEM price for 1,000 is?), it can't be as reliable as when we used to pay $2,800 for it. Also, there was a time where fan failure would account for half of the PS failures, not true anymore either. Michel.

3 2