Can someone tell me who own this router IP 65.198.220.90? I am unable to reach destination IPs when I send a source addr of 70.0.0.0. I am trying to determine if this 70.0.0.0 addr space is being blocked. Ronald W. Jean Network Engineer Miller Technologies Group LLC 973.676.3152 973.676.3153 www.millertechgrp.com <http://www.millertechgrp.com/> Ronald.Jean@millertechgrp.com <http://www.millertechgrp.com>
On 9/29/05, Ronald W. Jean <ronald.jean@millertechgrp.com> wrote:
Can someone tell me who own this router IP 65.198.220.90?
http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=!%20NET-65-198-220-0-1
Ronald W. Jean
Network Engineer
Hmm.
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Aaron Glenn wrote:
On 9/29/05, Ronald W. Jean <ronald.jean@millertechgrp.com> wrote:
Can someone tell me who own this router IP 65.198.220.90? http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=!%20NET-65-198-220-0-1
traceroute would also have shown you enlightening things... 6 0.so-6-0-0.XL1.IAD8.ALTER.NET (152.63.38.129) 3.316 ms 3.437 ms 3.607 ms 7 POS6-0.GW5.IAD8.ALTER.NET (152.63.36.53) 4.809 ms 5.233 ms 4.755 ms 8 broadwing-iad-gw.customer.alter.net (157.130.48.118) 5.055 ms 4.853 ms 4.841 ms 9 P5-0-0.p0.maee.broadwing.net (216.140.8.10) 4.798 ms 4.556 ms 4.481 ms 10 216.140.8.173 (216.140.8.173) 4.708 ms 4.434 ms 4.500 ms 11 so-7-2-0.c1.atln.broadwing.net (216.140.8.22) 15.568 ms 15.987 ms 15.456 ms 12 216.140.12.10 (216.140.12.10) 17.065 ms 16.885 ms 17.067 ms 13 67.98.191.78 (67.98.191.78) 27.217 ms 27.111 ms 26.675 ms 14 66.110.192.17 (66.110.192.17) 26.679 ms 33.820 ms 27.168 ms 15 65.198.220.90 (65.198.220.90) 31.134 ms 30.855 ms 36.058 ms even though it seems 'georgia public web' might have absconded with some uunet ip space :( -Chris
On Thursday 29 September 2005 11:38, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Aaron Glenn wrote:
On 9/29/05, Ronald W. Jean <ronald.jean@millertechgrp.com> wrote:
Can someone tell me who own this router IP 65.198.220.90?
traceroute would also have shown you enlightening things... 6 0.so-6-0-0.XL1.IAD8.ALTER.NET (152.63.38.129) 3.316 ms 3.437 ms 3.607 ms 7 POS6-0.GW5.IAD8.ALTER.NET (152.63.36.53) 4.809 ms 5.233 ms 4.755 ms 8 broadwing-iad-gw.customer.alter.net (157.130.48.118) 5.055 ms 4.853 ms 4.841 ms 9 P5-0-0.p0.maee.broadwing.net (216.140.8.10) 4.798 ms 4.556 ms 4.481 ms 10 216.140.8.173 (216.140.8.173) 4.708 ms 4.434 ms 4.500 ms 11 so-7-2-0.c1.atln.broadwing.net (216.140.8.22) 15.568 ms 15.987 ms 15.456 ms 12 216.140.12.10 (216.140.12.10) 17.065 ms 16.885 ms 17.067 ms 13 67.98.191.78 (67.98.191.78) 27.217 ms 27.111 ms 26.675 ms 14 66.110.192.17 (66.110.192.17) 26.679 ms 33.820 ms 27.168 ms 15 65.198.220.90 (65.198.220.90) 31.134 ms 30.855 ms 36.058 ms
even though it seems 'georgia public web' might have absconded with some uunet ip space :(
-Chris
How so ??? UUNET Technologies, Inc. UUNET65 (NET-65-192-0-0-1) 65.192.0.0 - 65.223.255.255 GEORGIA PUBLIC WEB UU-65-198-220-D4 (NET-65-198-220-0-1) 65.198.220.0 - 65.198.221.255 when the ARIN whois seems to indicate this is "allocated" space from UUNET. -- Larry Smith SysAd ECSIS.NET sysad@ecsis.net
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Larry Smith wrote:
On Thursday 29 September 2005 11:38, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Aaron Glenn wrote:
On 9/29/05, Ronald W. Jean <ronald.jean@millertechgrp.com> wrote:
Can someone tell me who own this router IP 65.198.220.90?
traceroute would also have shown you enlightening things... 6 0.so-6-0-0.XL1.IAD8.ALTER.NET (152.63.38.129) 3.316 ms 3.437 ms 3.607 ms 7 POS6-0.GW5.IAD8.ALTER.NET (152.63.36.53) 4.809 ms 5.233 ms 4.755 ms 8 broadwing-iad-gw.customer.alter.net (157.130.48.118) 5.055 ms 4.853 ms 4.841 ms 9 P5-0-0.p0.maee.broadwing.net (216.140.8.10) 4.798 ms 4.556 ms 4.481 ms 10 216.140.8.173 (216.140.8.173) 4.708 ms 4.434 ms 4.500 ms 11 so-7-2-0.c1.atln.broadwing.net (216.140.8.22) 15.568 ms 15.987 ms 15.456 ms 12 216.140.12.10 (216.140.12.10) 17.065 ms 16.885 ms 17.067 ms 13 67.98.191.78 (67.98.191.78) 27.217 ms 27.111 ms 26.675 ms 14 66.110.192.17 (66.110.192.17) 26.679 ms 33.820 ms 27.168 ms 15 65.198.220.90 (65.198.220.90) 31.134 ms 30.855 ms 36.058 ms
even though it seems 'georgia public web' might have absconded with some uunet ip space :(
-Chris
How so ???
I lept then looked :) actually it's all kosher. We've just had a rash of this sort of thing lately. Most likely we just NOTICED the rash, it's probably been festering for a while.
UUNET Technologies, Inc. UUNET65 (NET-65-192-0-0-1) 65.192.0.0 - 65.223.255.255 GEORGIA PUBLIC WEB UU-65-198-220-D4 (NET-65-198-220-0-1) 65.198.220.0 - 65.198.221.255
when the ARIN whois seems to indicate this is "allocated" space from UUNET.
as do many other things... processes don't always work as well as we'd like, eh?
On Thursday 29 September 2005 11:51, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
How so ???
I lept then looked :) actually it's all kosher. We've just had a rash of this sort of thing lately. Most likely we just NOTICED the rash, it's probably been festering for a while.
UUNET Technologies, Inc. UUNET65 (NET-65-192-0-0-1) 65.192.0.0 - 65.223.255.255 GEORGIA PUBLIC WEB UU-65-198-220-D4 (NET-65-198-220-0-1) 65.198.220.0 - 65.198.221.255
when the ARIN whois seems to indicate this is "allocated" space from UUNET.
as do many other things... processes don't always work as well as we'd like, eh?
That's cool, just wanted to make sure _I_ was not missing something in the translation as it were.... -- Larry Smith SysAd ECSIS.NET sysad@ecsis.net
aaron.glenn@gmail.com (Aaron Glenn) wrote:
Can someone tell me who own this router IP 65.198.220.90?
http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=!%20NET-65-198-220-0-1
Ronald W. Jean
Network Engineer
Hmm.
That somehow sums it up quite good. El "why the webwhois?" mar. -- "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2@ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
elmi@4ever.de (Elmar K. Bins) wrote:
That somehow sums it up quite good.
Folks, I'm taking this back, seeing that the original poster is not alone. Makes me wonder as to what current "network engineers" do know about the world they do networking in. I - please forgive me if this seems far-fetched - would have thought everybody doing "real" networking (as in "interconnecting with other networks") would know where and how to look for that information and how to interpret the usual tools' output. Am I wrong? Puzzled, Elmar. -- "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2@ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
On Sep 29, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
elmi@4ever.de (Elmar K. Bins) wrote:
That somehow sums it up quite good.
Folks, I'm taking this back, seeing that the original poster is not alone.
Makes me wonder as to what current "network engineers" do know about the world they do networking in. I - please forgive me if this seems far-fetched - would have thought everybody doing "real" networking (as in "interconnecting with other networks") would know where and how to look for that information and how to interpret the usual tools' output.
Am I wrong?
Yes, sadly you are... Part of the problem is that during "dot-com boom" (shudder) a large number of people heard that network engineering was easy money and took a class at the local community college. They don't like networks, they don't care about connectivity, its just a job to them. They don't want to learn anything and so they don't. Unlike some other engineering fields (I think that civil engineers are an example of this), you don't have to get any sort of certification / license to claim that you are a network *engineer*. I have met "Senior Network Engineers" who don't understand longest match rule ("The traffic will take 10/8 instead of 10.0.0.0/24 because it has a better admin distance", "I can override these 300 OSPF routes with a single static supernet", etc), who believe that routers will not route between directly connected interfaces without putting them into a routing protocol, that transit networks don't need a full mesh of iBGP[1] because "you can just redistribute BGP into [OSPF/IS-IS/IGP of choice], that ICMP uses TCP as a transport, etc. These are not simple brain-farts, there were all examples of deeply held beliefs that needed example networks built to convince the person otherwise (and the person who thought that routers would not route between directly connected networks without having the networks in a routing protocol still thinks that the example device was misfunctioning :-( ). I am sure that there are other, much more scary examples out there, feel free to send me (humorous) examples, I need a laugh today... Warren "Bitter today" Kumari [1] Yeah, yeah, or route reflectors, or confeds, or.. or... or... * Please note, this is not directed at Ronald at all, who I am assuming is clue-full but hadn't had coffee yet...
Puzzled, Elmar.
--
"Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2@ID-31.news.uni- berlin.de>)
-------------------------------------------------------------- [ ELMI-RIPE ]---
On Sep 29, 1:34pm warren@kumari.net wrote:
I am sure that there are other, much more scary examples out there, feel free to send me (humorous) examples, I need a laugh today...
My finest "Dilbert moment"; it's over ten years old now, in fact. Boss: Per, I need you to write much more comprehensive reports than you do now. I need much more detail. Per: But ... but why? I already spend at least half a day every week writing reports. Boss: So I can help you become more productive. 100% genuine true story. It got so bad that if there was nothing to report (ie, no outages, no problems, everything just worked) "Boss" was convinced we (network techies) were either lying, or superfluous. But that was a long time ago, I'm sure things have changed a lot ... :-) Best, -- Per
bilse@networksignature.com (Per Gregers Bilse) wrote:
My finest "Dilbert moment"; it's over ten years old now, in fact. [...] *g* It is _so_ true and so happens in probably 80% of the companies.
It got so bad that if there was nothing to report (ie, no outages, no problems, everything just worked) "Boss" was convinced we (network techies) were either lying, or superfluous.
I myself get that feeling sometimes. My boss doesn't, because he always knows of one more project that could be done...nasty :-) Elmar. -- "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2@ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
participants (7)
-
Aaron Glenn -
Christopher L. Morrow -
Elmar K. Bins -
Larry Smith -
Per Gregers Bilse -
Ronald W. Jean -
Warren Kumari