Easily confused...
Was trying to determine where this 'honolulu' speedtest was hosted: Tracing route to honolulu.speedtest.net [74.209.160.12] over a maximum of 30 hops: 122 ms ** 123.87.93.224 227 ms29 ms25 ms hawaiian-telcom-inc.gigabitethernet2-17.core1.lax2.he.net [184.105.134.170] 384 ms90 ms84 ms gige-g2-17.core1.lax2.he.net [184.105.134.169] 492 ms98 ms99 ms 10gigabitethernet7-3.core1.sjc2.he.net [184.105.213.5] 5 112 ms 114 ms 112 ms 10gigabitethernet4-3.core1.sea1.he.net [72.52.92.158] 6 113 ms 113 ms 114 ms six.netriver.net [206.81.80.160] 7 113 ms 113 ms 113 ms static-74-209-160-12.lynnwood.netriver.net [74.209.160.12] Trace complete. 123.87.93.224? inetnum:123.64.0.0 - 123.95.255.255 netname:CTTNET country:CN descr: China TieTong Telecommunications Corporation
Re: Easily confused...
On 4/16/11 4:24 PM, "Michael Painter" wrote: >Was trying to determine where this 'honolulu' speedtest was hosted: > >Tracing route to honolulu.speedtest.net [74.209.160.12] >over a maximum of 30 hops: > 122 ms ** 123.87.93.224 > 227 ms29 ms25 ms >hawaiian-telcom-inc.gigabitethernet2-17.core1.lax2.he.net >[184.105.134.170] > 384 ms90 ms84 ms gige-g2-17.core1.lax2.he.net >[184.105.134.169] > 492 ms98 ms99 ms 10gigabitethernet7-3.core1.sjc2.he.net >[184.105.213.5] > 5 112 ms 114 ms 112 ms 10gigabitethernet4-3.core1.sea1.he.net >[72.52.92.158] > 6 113 ms 113 ms 114 ms six.netriver.net [206.81.80.160] > 7 113 ms 113 ms 113 ms >static-74-209-160-12.lynnwood.netriver.net [74.209.160.12] >Trace complete. > >123.87.93.224? > >inetnum:123.64.0.0 - 123.95.255.255 >netname:CTTNET >country:CN >descr: China TieTong Telecommunications Corporation > Well, the DNS name is for a colocation facility in Lynnwood, WA via the Seattle Internet Exchange. I can confirm that the 6th hop actually does traverse the SIX, in as much as that IP is correct. Regards, Mike >
Re: Easily confused...
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: On 4/16/11 4:24 PM, "Michael Painter" wrote: Was trying to determine where this 'honolulu' speedtest was hosted: Tracing route to honolulu.speedtest.net [74.209.160.12] over a maximum of 30 hops: 122 ms ** 123.87.93.224 227 ms29 ms25 ms hawaiian-telcom-inc.gigabitethernet2-17.core1.lax2.he.net [184.105.134.170] 384 ms90 ms84 ms gige-g2-17.core1.lax2.he.net [184.105.134.169] 492 ms98 ms99 ms 10gigabitethernet7-3.core1.sjc2.he.net [184.105.213.5] 5 112 ms 114 ms 112 ms 10gigabitethernet4-3.core1.sea1.he.net [72.52.92.158] 6 113 ms 113 ms 114 ms six.netriver.net [206.81.80.160] 7 113 ms 113 ms 113 ms static-74-209-160-12.lynnwood.netriver.net [74.209.160.12] Trace complete. 123.87.93.224? inetnum:123.64.0.0 - 123.95.255.255 netname:CTTNET country:CN descr: China TieTong Telecommunications Corporation Well, the DNS name is for a colocation facility in Lynnwood, WA via the Seattle Internet Exchange. I can confirm that the 6th hop actually does traverse the SIX, in as much as that IP is correct. Regards, Mike Thanks. What concerned me was the first hop...22ms. is ~ the distance from Maui to Oahu, but why the Chinese IP? Cruel joke? I"m using Hawaiian Telcom's ADSL service and that first hop has always been their gateway IP address. Another TCP trace shows the first hop as 123.74.62.128...another CN address.
Re: Easily confused...
On 4/16/11 6:03 PM, Michael Painter wrote: Thanks. What concerned me was the first hop...22ms. is ~ the distance from Maui to Oahu, but why the Chinese IP? Cruel joke? I"m using Hawaiian Telcom's ADSL service and that first hop has always been their gateway IP address. Another TCP trace shows the first hop as 123.74.62.128...another CN address. I'm assuming your provider's network engineers (stupidly) assumed 123.x.x.x was a good idea for use in a private setup because it hadn't been assigned from the global pool (yet). Wouldn't be the first provider or service to not use proper RFC assigned private IP space for their internal networking setup. -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org/ http://www.ahbl.org
Re: Easily confused...
Brielle Bruns wrote: On 4/16/11 6:03 PM, Michael Painter wrote: Thanks. What concerned me was the first hop...22ms. is ~ the distance from Maui to Oahu, but why the Chinese IP? Cruel joke? I"m using Hawaiian Telcom's ADSL service and that first hop has always been their gateway IP address. Another TCP trace shows the first hop as 123.74.62.128...another CN address. I'm assuming your provider's network engineers (stupidly) assumed 123.x.x.x was a good idea for use in a private setup because it hadn't been assigned from the global pool (yet). Wouldn't be the first provider or service to not use proper RFC assigned private IP space for their internal networking setup. Well, in the 7-8 years I've been with them, they've never used Private IP space. IPConfig shows: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : hawaiiantel.net Description . . . . . . . . . . . : CNet PRO200WL PCI Fast Ethernet Adapter Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-08-A1-01-0E-29 Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 72.234.20x.x Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.254.0 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 72.234.206.1 DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 72.235.80.4 DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 72.235.80.12 72.235.80.4
Re: Easily confused...
Brielle Bruns wrote: On 4/16/11 6:03 PM, Michael Painter wrote: Thanks. What concerned me was the first hop...22ms. is ~ the distance from Maui to Oahu, but why the Chinese IP? Cruel joke? I"m using Hawaiian Telcom's ADSL service and that first hop has always been their gateway IP address. Another TCP trace shows the first hop as 123.74.62.128...another CN address. I'm assuming your provider's network engineers (stupidly) assumed 123.x.x.x was a good idea for use in a private setup because it hadn't been assigned from the global pool (yet). Wouldn't be the first provider or service to not use proper RFC assigned private IP space for their internal networking setup. Apologies...missed operative word 'internal'. They are testing IPTV on Oahu in preperation for roll-out, so maybe they renumbered in order to more easily identify the segments.(?)
Re: Easily confused...
On 4/16/11 6:06 PM, Michael Painter wrote: > They are testing IPTV on Oahu in preperation for roll-out, so maybe they > renumbered in order to more easily identify the segments.(?) by squating on address space that is or will be in use. joel
Re: Easily confused...
On 2011-04-16 20:06, Michael Painter wrote: Brielle Bruns wrote: I'm assuming your provider's network engineers (stupidly) assumed 123.x.x.x was a good idea for use in a private setup because it hadn't been assigned from the global pool (yet). Wouldn't be the first provider or service to not use proper RFC assigned private IP space for their internal networking setup. Apologies...missed operative word 'internal'. I was about to reply pointing that out. FWIW, they're not announcing that space, so I definitely agree with the poorly-thought-out private infrastructure theory. http://bgp.he.net/AS36149#_prefixes FWIW. They are testing IPTV on Oahu in preperation for roll-out, so maybe they renumbered in order to more easily identify the segments.(?) Really, I'd have hoped they'd use their two-year-old 2607:f9a0::/32 for anything that ambitious...but I might be wishing for too much. (Also, that 123 block seems to have been allocated in 2006, so it'd be even more unprofessional to start projects with that space since then.) Jima
Re: Easily confused...
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011, Jima wrote: I was about to reply pointing that out. FWIW, they're not announcing that space, so I definitely agree with the poorly-thought-out private infrastructure theory. http://bgp.he.net/AS36149#_prefixes FWIW. Poorly thought out private IP space? Nah...it's part of their security measures. It keeps those pesky Chinese from communicating with their network. Bots, bulletproof spammer hosting, who needs to talk to that? :) -- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Easily confused...
--- na...@jima.tk wrote: From: Jima On 2011-04-16 20:06, Michael Painter wrote: > Brielle Bruns wrote: >> I'm assuming your provider's network engineers (stupidly) assumed >> 123.x.x.x was a good idea for use in a private setup because it hadn't >> been assigned from the global pool (yet). >> >> Wouldn't be the first provider or service to not use proper RFC assigned >> private IP space for their internal networking setup. > > Apologies...missed operative word 'internal'. I was about to reply pointing that out. FWIW, they're not announcing that space, so I definitely agree with the poorly-thought-out private infrastructure theory. http://bgp.he.net/AS36149#_prefixes FWIW. --- When I was last there there was a definite lack of folks with hands-on experience managing that size of address space: a /15 and two /16s plus some swamp. Further there're a lot of companies that contract to them that suggest these things and the contractor's advice is always faithfully followed, so any blame will go to the vendor if trouble happens due to design flaws. Making waves by saying this or that is wrong definitely gets one into hot water... ;-) --- > They are testing IPTV on Oahu in preperation for roll-out, so maybe they > renumbered in order to more easily identify the segments.(?) Really, I'd have hoped they'd use their two-year-old 2607:f9a0::/32 for anything that ambitious...but I might be wishing for too much. (Also, that 123 block seems to have been allocated in 2006, so it'd be even more unprofessional to start projects with that space since then.) I'm the one that got this space for them, but allocation of folks to IPv6 roll out was minimal due the the upcoming IPTV roll out. I was the lone IPv6 voice in the company for a long time, but when I left there was gaining interest in IPv6 strategies. Not enough netgeeks and too many projects rolling out. scott
Re: Easily confused...
On 4/18/2011 2:53 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: --- They are testing IPTV on Oahu in preperation for roll-out, so maybe they renumbered in order to more easily identify the segments.(?) Really, I'd have hoped they'd use their two-year-old 2607:f9a0::/32 for anything that ambitious...but I might be wishing for too much. (Also, that 123 block seems to have been allocated in 2006, so it'd be even more unprofessional to start projects with that space since then.) I'm the one that got this space for them, but allocation of folks to IPv6 roll out was minimal due the the upcoming IPTV roll out. I was the lone IPv6 voice in the company for a long time, but when I left there was gaining interest in IPv6 strategies. Not enough netgeeks and too many projects rolling out. scott With the crudiness of the IPTV middleware aimed for smaller deployments, I'd expect nothing less than blank stares if you mention IPv6 multicast. Not to mention it would probably not work for 5 years.
Re: Easily confused...
On 4/19/11 3:30 AM, ML wrote: > > > With the crudiness of the IPTV middleware aimed for smaller deployments, > I'd expect nothing less than blank stares if you mention IPv6 multicast. > Not to mention it would probably not work for 5 years. NTT's deployment of globally scoped but not internet connected v6 addresses in support v6 multicast has been breaking my v6 connectivity in some residential settings on trips to japan since at least 2007, they appear to have the television part nailed however.
