imho, that just makes bt look even worse. now, instead of using things they shouldn't, they've got a large "broken" network. On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 12:50:43PM -0500, John Fraizer wrote:
Block traffic sourced from 1918 space at the borders like all good providers should do and it looks more like this:
11 transit1-pos10-3.ilford.ukcore.bt.net (194.74.16.245) 105.436 ms 104.467 ms 110.371 ms 12 core2-gig3-0.ilford.ukcore.bt.net (194.74.16.111) 109.295 ms 105.359 ms 107.466 ms 13 core2-pos10-0.bletchley.ukcore.bt.net (62.6.196.221) 107.255 ms 107.344 ms 109.345 ms 14 vhsaccess1-pos8-0.bletchley.fixed.bt.net (62.6.197.138) 107.308 ms 105.954 ms 111.282 ms 15 213.120.207.222 (213.120.207.222) 107.333 ms 106.454 ms 105.460 ms 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 213.120.62.61 (213.120.62.61) 106.933 ms 109.007 ms 111.363 ms 19 * * * 20 * * * 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * * 25 * * * 26 * * * 27 * * * 28 * * * 29 * * * 30 * * *
--- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Andrew Brown wrote:
speaking of rfc1918 addresses...one of my machines at home got poked at, so i did the usual thing which was perhaps waste about five minutes poking back from some place else if i feel like it. what i saw piqued my interest:
% traceroute -f12 213.123.76.29 traceroute to 213.123.76.29 (213.123.76.29), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 12 core1-pos10-0.bletchley.ukcore.bt.net (62.6.196.217) 349.804 ms 391.793 ms 354.819 ms 13 vhsaccess1-pos7-0.bletchley.fixed.bt.net (62.6.197.134) 472.775 ms 413.810 ms 429.770 ms 14 213.120.207.218 (213.120.207.218) 288.801 ms 285.806 ms 376.831 ms 15 172.16.93.125 (172.16.93.125) 348.788 ms 383.831 ms 274.826 ms 16 172.16.93.49 (172.16.93.49) 284.805 ms 426.828 ms 869.717 ms 17 172.16.93.37 (172.16.93.37) 243.793 ms 386.818 ms 394.838 ms 18 172.16.93.1 (172.16.93.1) 399.757 ms 281.851 ms 324.813 ms 19 192.168.250.17 (192.168.250.17) 279.814 ms 315.717 ms 241.842 ms 20 213.123.76.29 (213.123.76.29) 241.812 ms 247.859 ms 193.838 ms
now i've seen people using 10.x.x.x addresses for the endpoints of the occasional serial link, but this makes it look like most of british telecom's backbone uses private addressing. i wonder what would happen to them if someone were to leak a route into them for those addresses?
-- |-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----| codewarrior@daemon.org * "ah! i see you have the internet twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!" andrew@crossbar.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."
-- |-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----| codewarrior@daemon.org * "ah! i see you have the internet twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!" andrew@crossbar.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."