[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Multicast ends at 239.255.255.255, unless somebody dorked with the
RFCs while I wasn't looking, and failed to update the listing at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space while they were at it.
Doh! knew I should have checked ;-)
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:54:10 MST, Mike Lewinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> FWIW, only a small percentage of the updates were generating this error
>
> # grep -c '210.22.158.126.*denied' messages.2
> 1375
>
> # grep -c socket.c messages.2
> 24
Your kernel probably distinguishes between a
Brian Wallingford wrote:
Feb 12 16:25:07 ns1 named[3150]: socket.c:1100: unexpected error:
Hmm. A few weeks ago I started noticing some similiar messages that I
had not ever seen before:
Jan 29 18:21:52 named[658]: socket.c:1100: unexpected error:
Jan 29 18:21:52 named[658]: internal_send: 210.2
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 08:55:14 +1000, Matthew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >>Feb 12 16:25:07 ns1 named[3150]: internal_send: 244.254.254.254#53:
> >>Invalid argument
> Considering the address range, I'd say it'll have problems sending
> there... multicast anyone?
Multicast ends at 239.25
Brian Bruns wrote:
On Thu, February 12, 2004 4:52 pm, Brian Wallingford said:
We've been seeing the following on all of our (9.2.1) authoritative
nameservers since approximately 10am today. Googling has turned up
nothing; I'm currently trying to glean some useful netflow data. Just
wondering i
Brian Bruns wrote:
On Thu, February 12, 2004 4:52 pm, Brian Wallingford said:
We've been seeing the following on all of our (9.2.1) authoritative
nameservers since approximately 10am today. Googling has turned up
nothing; I'm currently trying to glean some useful netflow data. Just
wondering
On 12 Feb 2004, at 16:52, Brian Wallingford wrote:
We've been seeing the following on all of our (9.2.1) authoritative
nameservers since approximately 10am today. Googling has turned up
nothing; I'm currently trying to glean some useful netflow data. Just
wondering if this is local, or if oth
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Brian Wallingford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > We've been seeing the following on all of our (9.2.1) authoritative
> > nameservers since approximately 10am today. Googling has turned up
> > nothing; I'm currently trying to glean some
At 05:31 PM 2/12/2004, Brian Bruns wrote:
On Thu, February 12, 2004 4:52 pm, Brian Wallingford said:
>
> We've been seeing the following on all of our (9.2.1) authoritative
> nameservers since approximately 10am today. Googling has turned up
> nothing; I'm currently trying to glean some useful
On Thu, February 12, 2004 4:52 pm, Brian Wallingford said:
>
> We've been seeing the following on all of our (9.2.1) authoritative
> nameservers since approximately 10am today. Googling has turned up
> nothing; I'm currently trying to glean some useful netflow data. Just
> wondering if this is
Once upon a time, Brian Wallingford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> We've been seeing the following on all of our (9.2.1) authoritative
> nameservers since approximately 10am today. Googling has turned up
> nothing; I'm currently trying to glean some useful netflow data. Just
> wondering if this is
We've been seeing the following on all of our (9.2.1) authoritative
nameservers since approximately 10am today. Googling has turned up
nothing; I'm currently trying to glean some useful netflow data. Just
wondering if this is local, or if others have suddenly seen the same.
Seems harmless enou
12 matches
Mail list logo
