vijay gill wrote:
Wouldnt 172.15.255.254 and 172.32.0.1 do better at helping to nail down improper filter issues?On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 03:13:07PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
y'all might give us something pingable in that space so we can do a primitive and incomplete test in a simple fashion.
randy
try 172.128.1.1
/vijay
Wont above miss detecting of
172.0.0.0 0.15-127.255.255 172.16.0.0 0.31-63.255.255
while it will catch only
172.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
(disregarding other possible permutations) ?
Also perhaps a traceroute http web site there would be nice also.
Perhaps that is all more trouble than its worth.....