Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 38

10 Sep 2008

      --- 
[Message envoyé a partir d'un mobile]

Bruno VAZ

Ipercast Operations

40, Rue de PARIS / 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt

Tel +33 1 72 77 70 87
Mailbvaz@ipercast.net

-----Original Message-----
From: nanog-request@nanog.org

Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:59:40 
To: <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 38

Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
	nanog@nanog.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	nanog-request@nanog.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	nanog-owner@nanog.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. RE: duplicate packet  (Darden, Patrick S.)
   2. RE: duplicate packet  (Eric Van Tol)
   3. Re: duplicate packet  (Jon Lewis)
   4. Re: duplicate packet (Sebastian Abt)
   5. RE: duplicate packet  (Tim Sanderson)
   6. Re: duplicate packet (Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.)
   7. Re: Yahoo! mail admins? (Matthew Petach)
   8. Re: ingress SMTP (*Hobbit*)
   9. New (2-byte) ASN Allocation for RIPE NCC (Leo Vegoda)
  10. Teleglobe appears to be spam-source zombie network? (Jo Rhett)
  11. Re: Teleglobe appears to be spam-source zombie network?
      (Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom)
  12. Re: Teleglobe appears to be spam-source zombie network?
      (Marshall Eubanks)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:01:32 -0400
From: "Darden, Patrick S." <darden@armc.org>
Subject: RE: duplicate packet 
To: "chloe K" <chloekcy2000@yahoo.ca>,	<nanog@nanog.org>
Message-ID: <CBE22E5FF427B149A272DD1DDE107524023688B6@EX2K3.armc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

Check your ARP tables, local and on intervening switches/routers.  Make sure there are no duplicate entries for that IP.  If you note the response time, the second packet is always higher which might be indicative.  I would also check for a botched MITM a la C&A.

Even if there is no obvious ARP table manglement, you might try flushing the local and intervening caches.

Try the ping from another host, another subnet, another segment, get more info.

--p

-----Original Message-----
From: chloe K [mailto:chloekcy2000@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 6:46 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: duplicate packet 

Hi all

When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate 

I check the ip is just one. Why it happens?

Thank you

64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.296 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.328 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=0.291 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=0.316 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=0.279 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=0.309 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=0.271 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=0.299 ms (DUP!)

---------------------------------

Yahoo!         Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on         the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now!          

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:06:02 -0400
From: Eric Van Tol <eric@atlantech.net>
Subject: RE: duplicate packet 
To: 'chloe K' <chloekcy2000@yahoo.ca>, "nanog@nanog.org"
	<nanog@nanog.org>
Message-ID:
	<2C05E949E19A9146AF7BDF9D44085B86350AECC45F@exchange.aoihq.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
...
-----Original Message-----
From: chloe K [mailto:chloekcy2000@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 6:46 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: duplicate packet
Hi all
When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate
I check the ip is just one. Why it happens?
Thank you
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.296 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.328 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=0.291 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=0.316 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=0.279 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=0.309 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=0.271 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=0.299 ms (DUP!)
Check to see whether or not the port connected to that host is mirrored or in a SPAN VLAN.  Misconfiguration on an analyzer server can cause duplicate traffic to be generated.

-evt

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:11:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org>
Subject: Re: duplicate packet 
To: chloe K <chloekcy2000@yahoo.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0809100808070.5503@soloth.lewis.org>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, chloe K wrote:
...
When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate
I check the ip is just one. Why it happens?
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!)
Not enough information has been given.

Just hope it's not being caused by a Level3/Sprint circuit...ours is still 
doing this (when I change back to HDLC) and they just don't freaking care.
Sometimes I wish I worked for a big telco so I could leave things broken 
and say "hey, I'm the telco, I don't have to care."

Maybe we should refuse to pay for the affected DS3 and see if that gets 
more attention.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jon Lewis                   |  I route
  Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
  Atlantic Net                |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:11:48 +0200
From: Sebastian Abt <sabt@sabt.net>
Subject: Re: duplicate packet
To: chloe K <chloekcy2000@yahoo.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <20080910121148.GA4491@sephina.sabt.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

* chloe K wrote:
...
When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!)
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
What's your netmask?  Is 192.168.0.95 your net's broadcast address?
sebastian

-- 
SABT-RIPE   PGPKEY-D008DA9C

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:26:52 -0400
From: Tim Sanderson <tims@donet.com>
Subject: RE: duplicate packet 
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Message-ID:
	<C8780EC81EAFB24B94943243BA5BCC54292289670F@intexch07.internal.donet.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Instead, dispute the bill and then when they won't credit you for not giving you what you ordered, open a complaint with the state public utilities commission. It may get you some movement on the issue.

--
Tim Sanderson, network administrator
tims@donet.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jlewis@lewis.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:11 AM
To: chloe K
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: duplicate packet

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, chloe K wrote:
...
When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate
I check the ip is just one. Why it happens?
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!)
Not enough information has been given.

Just hope it's not being caused by a Level3/Sprint circuit...ours is still
doing this (when I change back to HDLC) and they just don't freaking care.
Sometimes I wish I worked for a big telco so I could leave things broken
and say "hey, I'm the telco, I don't have to care."

Maybe we should refuse to pay for the affected DS3 and see if that gets
more attention.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jon Lewis                   |  I route
  Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
  Atlantic Net                |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:10:20 -0500
From: "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <LarrySheldon@cox.net>
Subject: Re: duplicate packet
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <48C7C73C.7000900@cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Sebastian Abt wrote:
...
* chloe K wrote:
...
When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!)
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
What's your netmask?  Is 192.168.0.95 your net's broadcast address?
Ohhh!  Nice catch!

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:13:18 -0700
From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach@netflight.com>
Subject: Re: Yahoo! mail admins?
To: "Paul Kelly :: Blacknight" <paul@blacknight.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Message-ID:
	<63ac96a50809100613k3f9f2499p9270dbc5b7a82533@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 9/10/08, Paul Kelly :: Blacknight <paul@blacknight.com> wrote:
...
Hi There,
Are there any Yahoo! e-mail admins on the list? We're having some issues at times delivering e-mail to yahoo.co.uk and sometimes some of the other yahoo networks.
Probably not--but folks can probably get the message to the right ears.
Let me know off list the nature of the issue (layer 3 reachability vs
layer 7 application error messages) and I'll see what I can do to
get the message to the right recipients.

Thanks!

Matt
...
Thanks,
Paul
Paul Kelly
 Technical Director
 Blacknight Internet Solutions ltd
 Hosting, Colocation, Dedicated servers
 IP Transit Services
 Tel: +353 (0) 59 9183072
 Lo-call: 1850 929 929
 DDI: +353 (0) 59 9183091
e-mail: paul@blacknight.ie
 web: http://www.blacknight.ie
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd,
 Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,
 Sleaty Road,
 Graiguecullen,
 Carlow,
 Ireland
Company No.: 370845
------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:35:24 +0000 (GMT)
From: hobbit@avian.org (*Hobbit*)
Subject: Re: ingress SMTP
To: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <20080910123524.3D97E7808@relayer.avian.org>

I am completely convinced that abuse@ in most big providers is a
black hole with an autoresponder hung off it, and nothing ever
gets done with complaints.  NO HUMAN ever sees them, and even if
they did, most of the humans at these outfits wouldn't recognize
a Received: header if it bit them in the ass.

I invite and welcome anyone from the "big boyz" I named in the
original question -- verizon, comcast, roadrunner,  charter,
bellsouth/SBC, and now Google -- *especially* Gmail, given that
counterproductive "privacy" policy we noted -- to inform me
otherwise.

_H*

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:38:44 -0700
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>
Subject: New (2-byte) ASN Allocation for RIPE NCC
To: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>
Message-ID: <C4EDA894.1EC4C%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

This is to confirm that the IANA has allocated one 2-byte ASN block
to the RIPE NCC:

48128-49151     Assigned by RIPE NCC     whois.ripe.net
2008-09-09

A note of the allocation has been made at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xml
http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xhtml
http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.txt

Thank you and best regards,

Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda@icann.org

*******************************************
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA  90292
Phone: +1-310-823-9358
Fax: +1-310-823-8649
*******************************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFIx9suvBLymJnAzRwRAgnkAKDDxJCilYy0aErDQtQQFEcsCKG/QwCgi+Ao
029EI3Ful4LKPXMJEUGKs3g=
=7EeD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:47:26 -0700
From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>
Subject: Teleglobe appears to be spam-source zombie network?
To: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Message-ID: <03F411FC-74D6-48CA-84FC-16706B05BADE@netconsonance.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes

We started getting a flood of autobot spam to our listed abuse mailbox  
about an hour ago out of Teleglobe.  Trying to find someone to shut  
this down has found that

1. Teleglobe has no listed abuse contacts for any of their netblocks
2. The few of their records which have listed e-mail addresses all  
bounce
3. All listed phone numbers on any netblocks we can find are invalid

Any chance that RIPE is more strigent than ARIN and would pull their  
netblocks until they fix this stuff?

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness

------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:51:09 +0100 (WEST)
From: Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom <nuno.vieira@nfsi.pt>
Subject: Re: Teleglobe appears to be spam-source zombie network?
To: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Message-ID: <823080104.21701221076269458.JavaMail.root@zimbra.nfsi.pt>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Try reach them at CAbuse@tatacommunications.com

cheers,
---
Nuno Vieira
nfsi telecom, lda.

nuno.vieira@nfsi.pt
Tel. (+351) 21 949 2300 - Fax (+351) 21 949 2301
http://www.nfsi.pt/

----- "Jo Rhett" <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wrote:
...
We started getting a flood of autobot spam to our listed abuse mailbox
about an hour ago out of Teleglobe.  Trying to find someone to shut  
this down has found that
1. Teleglobe has no listed abuse contacts for any of their netblocks
2. The few of their records which have listed e-mail addresses all  
bounce
3. All listed phone numbers on any netblocks we can find are invalid
Any chance that RIPE is more strigent than ARIN and would pull their
netblocks until they fix this stuff?
-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness
------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:59:35 -0400
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
Subject: Re: Teleglobe appears to be spam-source zombie network?
To: Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom <nuno.vieira@nfsi.pt>
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Message-ID: <0B1059FF-6187-4212-A666-3124BFB38E88@multicasttech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes

On Sep 10, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom wrote:
...
Try reach them at CAbuse@tatacommunications.com
Yes - all my teleglobe contacts went over to Tata email addresses  
during the summer.

Regards
Marshall
...
cheers,
---
Nuno Vieira
nfsi telecom, lda.
nuno.vieira@nfsi.pt
Tel. (+351) 21 949 2300 - Fax (+351) 21 949 2301
http://www.nfsi.pt/
----- "Jo Rhett" <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wrote:
...
We started getting a flood of autobot spam to our listed abuse  
mailbox
about an hour ago out of Teleglobe.  Trying to find someone to shut
this down has found that
1. Teleglobe has no listed abuse contacts for any of their netblocks
2. The few of their records which have listed e-mail addresses all
bounce
3. All listed phone numbers on any netblocks we can find are invalid
Any chance that RIPE is more strigent than ARIN and would pull their
netblocks until they fix this stuff?
-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness
------------------------------

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

End of NANOG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 38
************************************

Bruno VAZ

tags

participants (1)