Re: Verizon DC/NOVA Issues?

[Brian Henson]

I am here in NOVA (on FIOS) and it's working with higher packet loss than
normal.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:14 PM Robert Webb  wrote:

> Any hearing of Verizon internet issues affecting the DC, Northern
> Virginia, and surrounding areas?
>
> Just got a flood of complaints about work VPN connections keep dropping
> and all users appear to be using Verizon internet and other users on
> Comcast are not having issues.
>
> Started maybe around 11:30AM EST..
>
> Thanks..
>
> Robert Webb
>

Re: Best ways to ensure redundancy with no terrestrial ISPs

[Brian Henson]

If we had a location (or at least a part of the world) we might be able to
recommend a little better.

On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 3:32 PM Ross Tajvar  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> A friend of mine is trying to set up a network in a location where there
> is no fiber (or copper) for many miles. As bandwidth requirements are low
> (<1M for the foreseeable future) but uptime is important, he was looking at
> using multiple cell modems from separate carriers as redundant uplinks. I
> am concerned that different cell carriers might be using the same transport
> providers to a given tower, so that wouldn't be truly redundant. Another
> option would be using a satellite provider as a backup for cellular. (The
> high latency that comes with satellite is not an issue.)
>
> A fixed-radio solution would likely be too expensive upfront as it would
> require building towers.
>
> Am I missing any other options or considerations?
>
> Thanks,
> Ross
>

Re: DNS resolving issues with AT&T Customer Resolvers

[Brian Henson]

Resolves here in Ohio and using 8.8.8.8 anycast address. on Timewarner

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Hiawatha Demby  wrote:

> C:\Users>nslookup bridgecatalog.com
> Server:  UnKnown
> Address:  192.168.0.1
>
> DNS request timed out.
> timeout was 2 seconds.
> DNS request timed out.
> timeout was 2 seconds.
> DNS request timed out.
> timeout was 2 seconds.
> DNS request timed out.
> timeout was 2 seconds.
> *** Request to UnKnown timed-out
>
> C:\Users>nslookup bridgecatalog.com 8.8.8.8
> Server:  google-public-dns-a.google.com
> Address:  8.8.8.8
>
> DNS request timed out.
> timeout was 2 seconds.
> DNS request timed out.
> timeout was 2 seconds.
> DNS request timed out.
> timeout was 2 seconds.
> DNS request timed out.
> timeout was 2 seconds.
> *** Request to google-public-dns-a.google.com timed-out
>
> C:\Users>nslookup bridgecatalog.com 68.94.156.15
> Server:  dns156r15.sbcglobal.net
> Address:  68.94.156.15
>
> DNS request timed out.
> timeout was 2 seconds.
> DNS request timed out.
> timeout was 2 seconds.
> DNS request timed out.
> timeout was 2 seconds.
> DNS request timed out.
> timeout was 2 seconds.
> *** Request to dns156r15.sbcglobal.net timed-out
>
> Looks like the AT&T server are unavailable and the host is unresolvable on
> my end.
>
> On 7/8/2016 3:36 PM, Mark Keymer wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a client bridgecatalog.com and it seems like customers with AT&T
>> are unable to resolve his Domain. Maybe I am just overlooking something
>> here but it seems like all should be working. Looking at outside tool
>> things look ok too.
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fdnscheck.pingdom.com%2f%3fdomain%3dbridgecatalog.com&data=01%7c01%7chdemby%40email.unc.edu%7ca1a111c28862421e835f08d3a7672759%7c58b3d54f16c942d3af081fcabd095666%7c1&sdata=OhVtZs8EqOGddhZh26uvcnMLBBZ5CiUTdeX9FXy5twk%3d
>>
>> (except the SOA hostmas...@solarek.com e-mailing issues I see now)
>>
>> Other domains seem to work fine. So it isn't just everything is down. One
>> of the end-users I was working with currently has an ip of 99.7.225.25.
>> Power cycling the modem did not change thing. I also flushed DNS. If I
>> change to google's open resolvers things work fine. But not with default
>> resolvers to client.
>>
>> Anyone at AT&T that could check that the resolver's your clients are
>> using are able to resolve. (Home / SMB connections, etc)
>>
>> I am not sure the best way to go about trying to look into this issue if
>> other have suggestion I would also appreciate it.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>

Re: Leak or legit ? 11/8

[Brian Henson]

They could be part of the private cloud initiative that I read about
recently. The DOD is trying to condense down the number of data centers
they have to cut costs and leverage better control over security.

On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Rafael Possamai  wrote:

> This is interesting, the DoD has a half trillion dollar budget, so not sure
> what the motivation was to get rid of a /8.
>
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Jérôme Nicolle  wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Just saw something suprising : 11/8 just came live from AS23352
> > (ServerCentral)
> > http://lg.ring.nlnog.net/prefix_detail/lg01/ipv4?q=11.0.0.0 .
> >
> > ARIN's registry didn't change :
> >
> > Net Range   11.0.0.0 - 11.255.255.255
> > CIDR11.0.0.0/8
> > NameDODIIS
> > Handle  NET-11-0-0-0-1
> > Parent
> > Net TypeDirect Allocation
> > Origin AS
> > OrganizationDoD Network Information Center (DNIC)
> > Registration Date   1984-01-19
> > Last Updated2007-08-22
> >
> > But on ALTDB it's declared as legit :
> >
> > http://www.altdb.net/whois.cgi?query=11.0.0.0%2F8
> >
> > So it's unlikely a mistake. What do you think happened here ?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jérôme Nicolle
> >
>

Re: Craigslist hacked?

[Brian Henson]

It still seems broken in some areas. Mail is bouncing from Hotmail to
craigslist.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Michael T. Voity  wrote:

> I hate to say this, But I think that Network Operators have not see the
> last of of this DNS Hijacking. Craigslist might have been a test to see how
> far they could get and how long it would take for it to be discovered.   I
> hope the FBI and the other Federal agencies out there are involved with
> Craigslist to determine how this happened and put in safeguards in place to
> help prevent this from happening again.
>
> -Mike
>
> Michael T. Voity
> Network Engineer
> University of Vermont
>
>
> On 11/24/2014 11:52 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
>> On 11/24/2014 08:41 AM, Alain Hebert wrote:
>>
>>>  Well,
>>>
>>>  NetSol?
>>>
>>>  Is it just me or they came up a few times lately (past year) in high
>>> profil case of DNS Hijacking?
>>>
>>>  Someone was kind enough to break into one of my domains at Register.com
>> -- and to their credit Register.com detected the intrusion and reported
>> it to me so I could go fix the problem.  Perp added DNS records to my
>> zone file, which I deleted, and reported the incident to the owner of
>> the IP address.
>>
>> Yes, I changed the passwords.
>>
>
>

Re: Craigslist hacked?

[Brian Henson]

I did a cache flush at googledns and it started resolving to a different IP
than the one earlier. Thinking the DNS may have been compromised somewhere.
New IP is 208.91.197.27 old one was 74.63.219.135

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Ken Chase  wrote:

> down for me and http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/craigslist.org
>
> /kc
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 07:45:35PM -0800, Chaim Rieger said:
>   >Comes up normal for me in LA, on twc.
>   >On Nov 23, 2014 7:43 PM, "Brian Henson"  wrote:
>   >
>   >> Is anyone else seeing their local craigslist redirected to another
> site
>   >> other than craigslist? I see it loading
> http://digitalgangster.com/5um.
>   >>
>
> --
> Ken Chase - m...@sizone.org Toronto Canada
>

Re: Craigslist hacked?

[Brian Henson]

Im seeing it resolve to 74.63.219.135 on my network and on
http://whois.domaintools.com/craigslist.org

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Quinn Kuzmich 
wrote:

> CoSprings list is coming up fine.
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Brian Henson  wrote:
>
>> Is anyone else seeing their local craigslist redirected to another site
>> other than craigslist? I see it loading http://digitalgangster.com/5um.
>>
>
>

Re: Craigslist hacked?

[Brian Henson]

Maybe an area based issue. tons of reports here
http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/craigslist.org.html

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Brian Artschwager 
wrote:

> Same here, New Jersey.
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:43 PM, aUser  wrote:
>
>> I can't reach my local one or the Fresno one.  Server unreachable.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone 5S.
>>
>> > On Nov 23, 2014, at 7:41 PM, Brian Henson  wrote:
>> >
>> > Is anyone else seeing their local craigslist redirected to another site
>> > other than craigslist? I see it loading http://digitalgangster.com/5um.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
> Brian
>

Re: Craigslist hacked?

[Brian Henson]

strange when I go to Boise.craigslist or dayton.craigslist.org I get a site
that shows digital Gangster for life as the title. so do some of the other
tools outside my network.

On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Charles Mills  wrote:

> Not seeing that here  The local site and the general http;//
> www.craigslist.org both look to be going to the correct site.
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Brian Henson  wrote:
>
>> Is anyone else seeing their local craigslist redirected to another site
>> other than craigslist? I see it loading http://digitalgangster.com/5um.
>>
>
>

Craigslist hacked?

[Brian Henson]

Is anyone else seeing their local craigslist redirected to another site
other than craigslist? I see it loading http://digitalgangster.com/5um.

Re: Kind of sad

[Brian Henson]

Generally speaking its a bad idea to show you hacking into a server. Makes
it to easy to prosecute those who do.

Re: pay.gov and IPv6

[Brian Henson]

Have you tried emailing the server admin at pay.gov.c...@clev.frb.org?

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:

>
> In message  vl3...@mail.gmail.com>
> , Todd Lyons writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Matthew Kaufman 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Random IPv6 complaint of the day: redirects from FCC.gov to pay.gov
> fail
> > >> when clients have IPv6 enabled. Work fine if IPv6 is off. One more
> set of
> > > Still broken, 7 months later. And again, I was too busy trying to pay
> to tr
> > y
> > > to pull a full set of logs. But if you do something on the FCC site
> that
> > > requires payment, the redirection flow dies halfway through if you're
> comin
> > g
> > > from IPv6 and works fine if you turn it off... so yet another computer
> in
> > > the house has IPv6 disabled until manually turned back on.
> >
> > FWIW, eftps.gov is also unreachable via ipv6. I tried all of miredo,
> > and my home Sixxs tunnel, and a HE tunnel from somewhere else.  I used
> > the 4or6 plugin to temporarily disable ipv6 and both sites loaded
> > straight away.
>
> If a site is unreachable your client should switch to IPv4 unless
> a IPv6 literal has been used.
>
> If your client take ages to switch over report a bug to the client
> vendor.
>
> It should not take ages to switch between multiple server addresses.
> IPv4 + IPv6 is just a example of multiple server addresses.
>
> > eftps.gov and pay.gov appear to be managed separately since both their
> > ipv4 and ipv6 netblocks are not in the same netblocks, and my path to
> > them is not the same:
> >
> > eftps.gov has IPv6 address 2620:10f:400e:a::13
> > mtr to eftps.gov via Sixxs:
> >  Host  Loss%   Snt   Last
> > Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
> >  1. 2604:8800:100:82bc:ddcb:ae62:e3da:c91f  0.0%160.9
> > 0.9   0.9   1.6   0.2
> >  2. gw-701.chi-03.us.sixxs.net  0.0%16   71.6
> > 72.4  68.6  78.3   2.4
> >  3. uschi03.sixxs.net   0.0%16   70.2
> > 71.8  69.2  78.8   2.4
> >  4. 2620:0:6b0:a::1 0.0%15   67.3
> > 73.3  67.3  79.7   3.2
> >  5. tge3-1.fr3.ord4.ipv6.llnw.net   0.0%15   73.6
> > 75.4  70.1  85.4   4.9
> >  6. ve8.fr3.ord.ipv6.llnw.net   0.0%15   73.5
> > 79.7  72.9  90.4   5.7
> >  7. 2600:805:41f::5 0.0%15  104.4
> > 81.9  74.2 104.4   9.0
> >  8. 2600:806::120.0%15  105.2
> > 104.0 100.6 109.8   2.9
> >  9. 2600:806:12f::2e0.0%15  134.5
> > 135.7 131.4 147.4   4.1
> > 10. 2620:10f:400e:1::4004   0.0%15  161.5
> > 145.9 131.5 163.8   9.9
> > 11. ???
> >
> > pay.gov has IPv6 address 2605:3100:fffd:100::15
> > mtr to pay.gov via Sixxs:
> >  Host  Loss%   Snt   Last
> > Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
> >  1. 2604:8800:100:82bc:ddcb:ae62:e3da:c91f  0.0%110.9
> > 0.9   0.7   1.1   0.1
> >  2. gw-701.chi-03.us.sixxs.net  0.0%11   70.8
> > 70.9  67.0  74.4   2.2
> >  3. uschi03.sixxs.net   0.0%11   73.7
> > 73.7  69.8  90.1   5.6
> >  4. 2620:0:6b0:a::1 0.0%11   70.6
> > 73.7  70.4  86.2   5.0
> >  5. tge3-1.fr3.ord4.ipv6.llnw.net   0.0%11   72.4
> > 75.6  71.5  82.6   3.2
> >  6. ve8.fr3.ord.ipv6.llnw.net   0.0%11   76.1
> > 79.3  74.7  87.9   4.0
> >  7. tge32-3.fr3.dal.ipv6.llnw.net   0.0%11   99.1
> > 100.1  96.4 106.2   2.7
> >  8. sl-st30-dal-te0-14-0-1.v6.sprintlink.net0.0%11   98.2
> > 102.0  98.2 111.0   4.4
> >  9. sl-crs1-fw-be40.v6.sprintlink.net   0.0%11   99.5
> > 100.5  96.2 105.5   2.5
> > 10. sl-gw38-fw-po0-0.v6.sprintlink.net  0.0%11   96.4
> > 98.8  96.4 105.1   2.6
> > 11. 2600:4:2000:4::90.0%11  100.2
> > 102.0  99.0 107.0   2.7
> > 12. ???
> >
> > I was hoping an eftps.gov or pay.gov employee was casting an eye this
> > way, but it doesn't look like anybody from there is subscribed to
> > NANOG.
> >
> > ...Todd
> > --
> > The total budget at all receivers for solving senders' problems is $0.
> > If you want them to accept your mail and manage it the way you want,
> > send it the way the spec says to. --John Levine
> --
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
>

Re: All of .mil tld is down

[Brian Henson]

Looks like it has been corrected now


On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Anurag Bhatia  wrote:

> Hi Clark
>
>
> It's down when looked upon from our DNS recursors in India as well.
>
>
> I have seen in past with many domains (not TLDs though) that when they are
> down due to non-reachability of authoritative servers for the zone, OpenDNS
> and Google DNS still give answers. Likely they have some in-built
> resistivity to these issues by serving the stale data when auth is
> unreachable.
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Clark Shishido 
> wrote:
>
> > OpenDNS still has A records for nipr.mil authoritative nameservers.
> >
> >
> > % dig -t ns nipr.mil @resolver1.opendns.com
> >
> > ; <<>> DiG 9.9.3-P2 <<>> -t ns nipr.mil @resolver1.opendns.com
> > ;; global options: +cmd
> > ;; Got answer:
> > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 37645
> > ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 6, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
> >
> > ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
> > ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
> > ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> > ;nipr.mil.  IN  NS
> >
> > ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> > nipr.mil.   20126   IN  NS  EUR2.nipr.mil.
> > nipr.mil.   20126   IN  NS  EUR1.nipr.mil.
> > nipr.mil.   20126   IN  NS  PAC2.nipr.mil.
> > nipr.mil.   20126   IN  NS  CON1.nipr.mil.
> > nipr.mil.   20126   IN  NS  PAC1.nipr.mil.
> > nipr.mil.   20126   IN  NS  CON2.nipr.mil.
> >
> > ;; Query time: 58 msec
> > ;; SERVER: 208.67.222.222#53(208.67.222.222)
> > ;; WHEN: Tue May 20 04:09:11 UTC 2014
> > ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 151
> >
> > % dig eur2.nipr.mil @resolver1.opendns.com
> >
> > ; <<>> DiG 9.9.3-P2 <<>> eur2.nipr.mil @resolver1.opendns.com
> > ;; global options: +cmd
> > ;; Got answer:
> > ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 44901
> > ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
> >
> > ;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
> > ; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
> > ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> > ;eur2.nipr.mil. IN  A
> >
> > ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> > eur2.nipr.mil.  20103   IN  A   199.252.143.234
> >
> > ;; Query time: 56 msec
> > ;; SERVER: 208.67.222.222#53(208.67.222.222)
> > ;; WHEN: Tue May 20 04:09:34 UTC 2014
> > ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 58
> >
> >
> >
> > On 20 May 2014 03:01, Tony Wicks  wrote:
> > All those Domain servers seem to be in the one /16 and my traces show
> them
> > all taking the same network path... Well that is pretty poor planning...
> >
> >  http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/mil.html
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of jamie rishaw
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 May 2014 2:40 p.m.
> > To: NANOG list
> > Subject: All of .mil tld is down
> >
> > At time of post..
> > .mil. is down.
> > Apparently an Anonymous "Operation Payback".
> >
> > .mil nameservers are unresponsive.
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Anurag Bhatia
> anuragbhatia.com
>
> Linkedin  |
> Twitter
> Skype: anuragbhatia.com
>
> PGP Key Fingerprint: 3115 677D 2E94 B696 651B 870C C06D D524 245E 58E2
>

Re: Gmail throttling?

[Brian Henson]

The correct URL should be https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Eduardo A. Suárez <
esua...@fcaglp.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> some of our users have forwarded the email to Gmail and Gmail now are
> complaining that this is bulk mail and delaying it.
>
> We have SPF, DKIM, DMARC, even SRS to try these things do not happen :(
>
> Anyone know if there is any new policy in Gmail about that?
>
> Above all, the message refers to a non-existent URI!
>
>  RSET

>>> 250 2.1.5 Flushed v69si8136768yhd.33 - gsmtp
> ... Using cached ESMTP connection to
> gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com. via esmtp...
>
>> MAIL From: SIZE=150374 BODY=8BITMIME

>>> 250 2.1.0 OK v69si8136768yhd.33 - gsmtp
>
>> RCPT To:
 DATA

>>> 250 2.1.5 OK v69si8136768yhd.33 - gsmtp
> 354  Go ahead v69si8136768yhd.33 - gsmtp
>
>> .

>>> 421-4.7.0 [163.10.4.2  15] Our system has detected an unusual rate of
> 421-4.7.0 unsolicited mail originating from your IP address. To protect our
> 421-4.7.0 users from spam, mail sent from your IP address has been
> temporarily
> 421-4.7.0 rate limited. Please visit http://www.google.com/mail/
> help/bulk_mail.
> 421 4.7.0 html to review our Bulk Email Senders Guidelines.
> v69si8136768yhd.33 - gsmtp
>
>> QUIT

>>>
>
> Eduardo.-
>
>
> --
> Eduardo A. Suarez
> Facultad de Ciencias Astronómicas y Geofísicas - UNLP
> FCAG: (0221)-4236593 int. 172/Cel: (0221)-15-4557542/Casa: (0221)-4526589
>
>
> 
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>
>

Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?

[Brian Henson]

The only major ISP that I seen so far that has rolled out is Comcast. Been
probing the TW Cable people for months to see what their plans are for IPv6
in Ohio and all I have gotten is a million different stories.


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Justin M. Streiner
wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, George, Wes wrote:
>
>  Interestingly, I have one of the later-generation ActionTecs, and VZ
>> pushed a software update to it at some point and it sprouted IPv6 config.
>>
>
> I noticed the same thing on my router several months ago, but when I
> called to see if I could get IPv6 turned on for my account, no go.
>
> jms
>
>

Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

[Brian Henson]

Now if Time Warner Cable would get their act together in Ohio (looks at
them :) )


On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Mehmet Akcin  wrote:

> Yay! Thank you very much.
>
> You should write up something to their support forums!
>
> Mehmet
>
> > On Nov 22, 2013, at 22:22, Andrew D Kirch  wrote:
> >
> > Special thanks to Alexander from AT&T's "Tier-2" dept, though my
> suspicion is that that is not where he works, as he seems exceptionally
> clueful.
> > Additional thanks to Owen DeLong who finally got me off my ass to
> actually do this, I'll see you in the sky!
> >
> > Ok, is this core routing? not really, but it's nice to see a major clue
> injection over at AT&T Uverse.  I'm using this to document the MASSIVE
> bureaucratic PITA which is getting native IPv6 on uverse.  You'll start
> from the default service on a 2wire "modem" (for values of modem that
> equate to profanity).  If you have the Motorola NVG589, count yourself
> lucky and skip most of these steps.
> >
> > Abandon all hope ye who enter here
> >
> > Step 1: contact AT&T Uverse support and complain that you need IPv6
> (because we all need it, I in fact do for work).
> > Step 2: general confusion as the level 1 droid doesn't know what IPv6
> is, politely request to be transferred to tier 2
> > step 3: you will be told that tier 2 is a paid service, invoke the
> almighty FCC and ask to speak with a supervisor, expect a long hold here.
> > step 4: you arrive at tier 2, mention that IPv6 won't work on your 2wire
> and that AT&T has broken your protocol 41 tunnel with  here, usually HE>
> > step 5: you'll need to get your 2wire replaced with a Motorola NVG589.
>  Again you will be threatened with a cost to upgrade, mine was waived due
> to the work requirement.  I'd guess some additional complaining and
> escalation will get this fee waived.  My recollection was it was $100.  The
> new modem is good news for quite a few reasons, the 2wire sucks, the
> Motorola sucks significantly less, and has a built in battery backup, but
> mine lacked the battery.
> > step 6: you'll receive the motorola by mail, or have a tech install it,
> they actually had a tech in my area and I had an AT&T tech at my door in
> less than 20 minutes from when I got off the phone with tier-2 (I about
> died from the shock).
> > step 7: configure the motorola (192.168.1.254) for passthrough,
> DHCPS-dynamic, disable the firewall, the "advanced" firewall, hpna,
> wireless, etc.
> > Step 8: reboot to push the public IP to your real router.
> > step 9: head over to the Motorola's home network tab, and in the status
> window you'll see:
> >
> >
> >   IPv6
> >
> > StatusAvailable
> > Global IPv6 Address2602:306:cddd:::1/64
> > Link-local IPv6 Addressfe80::923e:abff::7e40
> > Router Advertisement Prefix2602:306:cddd:::/64
> > IPV6 Delegated LAN Prefix2602:306:cddd:::
> > 2602:306:cddd:::
> >
> >
> > In reality additional poking leads me to believe AT&T gives you a rather
> generous /60, but how to use it?
> > step 10: set up dhcpv6, example for mikrotik follows (but should be
> easily convertible to nearly any router):
> >
> > /ipv6> export
> > # dec/31/2001 20:26:03 by RouterOS 6.6
> > # software id = 5F2Y-X73L
> > #
> > /ipv6 address
> > add address=2602:306:cddd:::1 from-pool=AT&T interface=bridge1
> > /ipv6 dhcp-client
> > add add-default-route=yes interface=ether10 pool-name=AT&T
> >
> > I hope that this is of help to someone.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
>
>

Re: Advisory — D-root is changing its IPv4 address on the 3rd of January.

[Brian Henson]

Let us all have a moment of silence to remember all those poor unmanaged
servers out there..Thank you now nuke them all and start over :)

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Bryan Fields  wrote:

> On 12/15/12 6:07 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> > Are BIND's warning messages so opaque that someone who is looking at name
> > server log messages can't figure out that the warning is talking about a
> > root server IP address being changed?
>
> What about the people that are running BIND 4 on an old Solaris 2.6 box,
> and
> the log file filled up at 2gb back in 2006?  Also they forgot the root
> password, and no one has a boot disk.
>
> Won't somebody think of the boxen?
>
> --
> Bryan Fields
>
> 727-409-1194 - Voice
> 727-214-2508 - Fax
> http://bryanfields.net
>
>

Re: guys != gender neutral

[Brian Henson]

Are we really still talking about this?

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Aled Morris  wrote:

> On 27 September 2012 22:34, Lorell Hathcock  wrote:
> > Police-clown.  Yep!
>
> Here in the UK, apparently the government preferred term for
> policepersons is "pleb"...
>
> http://duckduckgo.com/?q=police+pleb
>
> Aled
>
>

Re: UCSF Network Admin??

[Brian Henson]

also responds here in Ohio on TW

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Henry Stryker  wrote:

>
>
> On 08/01/12 16:22 , Robert Glover wrote:
> > We are having issues with getting responses from these servers:
> >
> > NSMEDCTR1.UCSFMEDICALCENTER.ORG
> > NSMEDCTR2.UCSFMEDICALCENTER.ORG
> >
> > Which are authoritative for "ucsfmedctr.org" and "ucsfmedicalcenter.org
> ".
>
>
> Those servers respond to my queries from here in AZ:
>
> # dig www.ucsfmedicalcenter.org @nsmedctr2.ucsfmedicalcenter.org
> www.ucsfmedicalcenter.org. 86400 IN CNAME
> webmcb06.ucsfmedicalcenter.org.
> webmcb06.ucsfmedicalcenter.org. 86400 IN A  64.54.46.99
> ;; Query time: 41 msec
> ;; SERVER: 64.54.50.50#53(64.54.50.50)
> ;; WHEN: Wed Aug  1 17:36:36 2012
> ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 93
>
> # dig www.ucsfmedicalcenter.org @nsmedctr1.ucsfmedicalcenter.org
> www.ucsfmedicalcenter.org. 86400 IN CNAME
> webmcb06.ucsfmedicalcenter.org.
> webmcb06.ucsfmedicalcenter.org. 86400 IN A  64.54.46.99
> ;; Query time: 54 msec
> ;; SERVER: 64.54.42.50#53(64.54.42.50)
> ;; WHEN: Wed Aug  1 17:37:41 2012
> ;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 93
>
>

Re: Carrier assistance

[Brian Henson]

can we please ban his email from the list?

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Joe Greco  wrote:

> > What's with the porn lately?
> >
> > On 7/9/2012 3:13 PM, NIG NOG wrote:
> > >
> > > Diane spent a few more seconds over by the dresser before turning back
> around, condom in hand and already unwrapped.
>
> Probably someone trying to bring attention to the abuse problems Y!
> has lately.
>
> ... JG
> --
> Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
> "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and]
> then I
> won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail
> spam(CNN)
> With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many
> apples.
>
>

Re: TW in ohio

[Brian Henson]

Thank you for the information. I just wish they would get it all working.
At this point I would be happy with a GRE tunnel to a router that had IPv6.
I use tunnel broker now but with the low lease time of the TW dhcp server i
have to run the updater script just about every hour to keep the tunnel up.
/beginrant When I called the tech support line trying to get information
about their IPv6 plans it was like talking to a brick wall. Eventually I
got a supervisor on the phone and he stated that there was no need for
IPv6. Everytime I talk to their support I feel dumber and dumber. They
don't even know the difference between a software issue and a network issue
in most cases. I called about seeing extremly high latency at the border
router as seen by traceroute at 2 seperate locations and they refused to do
anything until I requested them to talk to their supervisor. They put a
ticket in to the advanced tech support but I never heard a word from them.
/endrant... So maybe they can't do IPv6 until they get the network issues
taken care of. Somedays I miss having qwest, their tech support was great.
My account was tagged in someway and they usually asked if I would like to
be sent straight to level 2 support once they looked up my account. Maybe
someone from TW tech support will eventually see our messages and give the
official response.

Brian Henson

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:18 PM,  wrote:

> Brian,
>  When I called Roadrunner about a week before IPV6 day, they had trouble
> finding
> anyone even in the business tech people that knew if it was even partially
> working
> for residential or not. I also had signed up over a year ago for testing,
> heard nothing.
> Our datacenter in Columbus is fully IPV6, and I could route a /64 to me
> over an
> IPV6->IPV4 tunnel to my D-Link DIR-825 router and it worked great,
> contacted any
> IPV6 site no problems from within my residential RR network.
>  But as far as native, they have no idea when, if even by year end.
> I couldn't even get a straight answer if they were doing IPV6 over their
> business class,
> so who knows.  They don't even have the IPV6 testing signup page any more.
>
> Gary Anagnostis
> CompleteWeb.Net
>
>
> > Anyone here using timewarrner residential able to use IPv6 natively
> during
> > world IPv6 day?  I have the equipment to support it but never saw any
> ipv6
> > address being assigned to my firewall.
> >
> > Brian Henson
> >
>
>
>