On 1/15/12, nanog-requ...@nanog.org <nanog-requ...@nanog.org> wrote: > Send NANOG mailing list submissions to > nanog@nanog.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nanog-requ...@nanog.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nanog-ow...@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: Whois 172/12 (Alex Ryu) > 2. RE: Whois 172/12 (Network IP Dog) > 3. Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google? (Mark Tinka) > 4. Re: Whois 172/12 (Suresh Ramasubramanian) > 5. Re: Whois 172/12 (Jay Moran) > 6. accessing multiple devices via a script (Abdullah Al-Malki) > 7. Re: accessing multiple devices via a script (Phil Regnauld) > 8. Re: accessing multiple devices via a script (Joel jaeggli) > 9. Re: accessing multiple devices via a script (Justin Krejci) > 10. Re: accessing multiple devices via a script (Kurth Bemis) > 11. RE: Whois 172/12 (Keith Medcalf) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 09:43:24 -0600 > From: Alex Ryu <r.hyuns...@ieee.org> > To: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Whois 172/12 > Message-ID: > <CAM9zEH5_P2o2s8rT6TaE1OeE4dZC2GamWpgDAoZU_i1iq=p...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Similar to 1.0.0.0/8 case, which was allocated to APNIC last year or so... > > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:47 AM, <bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 06:36:12AM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote: >>> > From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi....@nanog.org ?Sun Jan 15 >>> > 02:02:00 2012 >>> > Subject: Re: Whois 172/12 >>> > From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patr...@ianai.net> >>> > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 02:58:11 -0500 >>> > To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> >>> > >>> > Read RFC1918. >>> > >>> > Likely a machine on his local network (i.e. behind the same NAT box) is >>> > hitting him. >>> >>> >>> Patrick, >>> ? I'v read RFC-1918. ? I cannot find *any* reference to ?172.0/12, as the >>> OP >>> was asking about. ?172.16/12, yes. but not 172.0/12. ?Can you please >>> clarify >>> your advice? >>> >>> ZZ >> >> >> ? ? ? ?so as a stylistic point, ? 172/12 ?is supposed to equal >> 172.0.0.0/12? >> >> ? ? ? ?if memory serves, back in the day, there were records of >> allocations in this space, >> ? ? ? ?pre-ARIN. When RFC 1918 was settled on, there were some folks >> blocking 172.0.0.0/8 >> ? ? ? ?so there was talk of relocating those folks into other space. >> >> /bill >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 08:16:42 -0800 > From: "Network IP Dog" <network.ip...@gmail.com> > To: "'Suresh Ramasubramanian'" <ops.li...@gmail.com>, "'Patrick W. > Gilmore'" <patr...@ianai.net> > Cc: 'NANOG list' <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: RE: Whois 172/12 > Message-ID: <4f12fbf5.a24de70a.66e1.fffff...@mx.google.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > <quote>Jesus. 172.16/12 fine .. that's rfc1918. The rest of 172/8 is > mostly unallocated.</quote> > > What's with the language? > > Ephesians 4:32 & Cheers!!! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:35 AM > To: Patrick W. Gilmore > Cc: NANOG list > Subject: Re: Whois 172/12 > > Jesus. 172.16/12 fine .. that's rfc1918. The rest of 172/8 is mostly > unallocated. > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net> > wrote: >> Read RFC1918. >> >> Likely a machine on his local network (i.e. behind the same NAT box) is >> hitting him. >> >> But that is not guaranteed. A packet with a source address of 172.0.x.x > > > > -- > Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com) > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:17:55 +0800 > From: Mark Tinka <mti...@globaltransit.net> > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Monday Night Footbal -- on Google? > Message-ID: <201201160017.59546.mti...@globaltransit.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:06:42 PM Jay Ashworth > wrote: > >> I'm not saying you need the whole 19mbps (though, >> remember here, we are not talking about "Additional >> Carriage"; we are talking about *being the only way >> people can see that game* -- and my example was the >> Super Bowl).. but unless MPEG algorithms have gotten >> *much* better than I'm aware of, 5mb/s is probably not >> enough for the Super Bowl. And you'd really be better >> off with some FEC, too, even if it costs you a couple >> frames extra delay. > > For broadcast networks, what we're seeing they like is that > unlike satellite transmissions, there is more flexibility > for them on IP (IPTv), which would let them lift compression > rates and pack more data into a stream. > > But because most of them are primarily satellite > broadcasting houses, only starting to roll-out IPTv, they > need to maintain parity on both transmission media. > > Whatever the case, 5Mbps would be too low. At 1080i, we have > a customer pushing HD channels at about 13Mbps a piece, give > or take. > > Mark. > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 836 bytes > Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. > URL: > <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20120116/266aa19b/attachment-0001.bin> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:59:53 +0530 > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.li...@gmail.com> > To: Network IP Dog <network.ip...@gmail.com> > Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Whois 172/12 > Message-ID: > <caarzuouosasia6yr_rzxou9wb5+evg_uyjnk2gx3sqwavmk...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > So kind, compassionate and forgiving that I'll buy Patrick a beer when > I see him next, its been a long time. > > --srs > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Network IP Dog <network.ip...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> <quote>Jesus. 172.16/12 fine .. that's rfc1918. ? The rest of 172/8 is >> mostly unallocated.</quote> >> >> What's with the language? >> >> Ephesians 4:32 ?& ?Cheers!!! > > > > -- > Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com) > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:39:48 -0500 > From: Jay Moran <jay+na...@tp.org> > To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Whois 172/12 > Message-ID: > <CA+Ld8r9ouXgt6FPb_jdOASf9bK_CwmeQjYQV9dc=+jeezfv...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Jon Lewis <jle...@lewis.org> wrote: > > >> AOL has and uses (publicly) a bunch of space in 172/8. In fact, looking >> at a BGP table, I'd say they're by far the largest user (one of the only) >> in that /8. >> > > We, AOL, have 172.128/10, 172.192/12, 172.208/13, 172.216/16. These blocks > represent our dial-up ISP customers that can't seem to get broadband or for > whatever reason, stay on dial-up. Also pretty amazingly is how high the > simultaneous user count has stayed, guess the folks that left weren't the > ones on in the evenings between 7-10pm ET. We (mostly me) are looking into > solutions to be able to remove the reliance on this space. Unfortunately, > most of the developers, who created the various servers/applications that > dole out these addresses, all left in the late 90's with some pretty fat > wallets; at this point... it's an archeology dig. > > Jay > -- > Jay Moran > http://tp.org/jay > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:52:50 +0300 > From: Abdullah Al-Malki <a.almalki1...@gmail.com> > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: accessing multiple devices via a script > Message-ID: > <capocsvtrrhcc4t_lodz_7eahwckep58zjfvy8ufiljf4qq4...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hi fellows, > I am supporting a big service provider and sometimes I face this problem. > Sometimes I want to access my customer network and want to extract some > verification output "show commands" from a large number of devices. > > What kind of scripting solutions you guys are using this case. > > Appreciate the feedback, > Abdullah > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:56:55 +0100 > From: Phil Regnauld <regna...@nsrc.org> > To: Abdullah Al-Malki <a.almalki1...@gmail.com> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: accessing multiple devices via a script > Message-ID: <20120115175655.gb35...@macbook.bluepipe.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Abdullah Al-Malki (a.almalki1402) writes: >> Hi fellows, >> I am supporting a big service provider and sometimes I face this problem. >> Sometimes I want to access my customer network and want to extract some >> verification output "show commands" from a large number of devices. >> >> What kind of scripting solutions you guys are using this case. > > Hi Abdullah, > > rancid ? > > http://www.shrubbery.net/rancid/ > > Cheers, > Phil > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 10:01:29 -0800 > From: Joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> > To: Phil Regnauld <regna...@nsrc.org> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: accessing multiple devices via a script > Message-ID: <4f131479.6040...@bogus.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 1/15/12 09:56 , Phil Regnauld wrote: >> Abdullah Al-Malki (a.almalki1402) writes: >>> Hi fellows, >>> I am supporting a big service provider and sometimes I face this problem. >>> Sometimes I want to access my customer network and want to extract some >>> verification output "show commands" from a large number of devices. >>> >>> What kind of scripting solutions you guys are using this case. >> >> Hi Abdullah, >> >> rancid ? >> >> http://www.shrubbery.net/rancid/ > > clogin from rancid features prominently in a lot of our network level > automation... > > so does pdsh... > > http://code.google.com/p/pdsh/ > > Particularly when it involves hosts. > >> Cheers, >> Phil >> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 18:41:09 +0000 > From: "Justin Krejci" <jkre...@usinternet.com> > To: "Abdullah Al-Malki" <a.almalki1...@gmail.com>, nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: accessing multiple devices via a script > Message-ID: > > <1400261429-1326652872-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-359265357-@b1.c4.bise6.blackberry> > > Content-Type: text/plain > > Parallel ssh (pssh) might help you too > > > ------Original Message------ > From: Abdullah Al-Malki > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: accessing multiple devices via a script > Sent: Jan 15, 2012 11:52 AM > > Hi fellows, > I am supporting a big service provider and sometimes I face this problem. > Sometimes I want to access my customer network and want to extract some > verification output "show commands" from a large number of devices. > > What kind of scripting solutions you guys are using this case. > > Appreciate the feedback, > Abdullah > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:46:13 -0500 > From: Kurth Bemis <kurth.be...@gmail.com> > To: Phil Regnauld <regna...@nsrc.org> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: accessing multiple devices via a script > Message-ID: <1326653173.3288.4.camel@kurth-gsm> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 18:56 +0100, Phil Regnauld wrote: >> Abdullah Al-Malki (a.almalki1402) writes: >> > Hi fellows, >> > I am supporting a big service provider and sometimes I face this >> > problem. >> > Sometimes I want to access my customer network and want to extract some >> > verification output "show commands" from a large number of devices. >> > >> > What kind of scripting solutions you guys are using this case. >> >> Hi Abdullah, >> >> rancid ? >> >> http://www.shrubbery.net/rancid/ >> >> Cheers, >> Phil >> > > Back in the day (~2001 era) I used expect to do a lot of tasks across > (in that day) telnet. > > http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3065 > > Good Luck, > ~k > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:49:22 -0700 > From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedc...@dessus.com> > To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: RE: Whois 172/12 > Message-ID: <4317db7bf189e74dad2ded4257773...@mail.dessus.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > As port 137 is the Netbios Name Service port are you *sure* this is a port > scan and not a windows box (or other OS running NetBIOS crud) that simply > has fat-fingered addresses configured? > > > --- > ()? ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail > /\? www.asciiribbon.org > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ted Fischer [mailto:t...@fred.net] >> Sent: Sunday, 15 January, 2012 01:20 >> To: nanog@nanog.org >> Subject: Re: Whois 172/12 >> >> Thanks for the replies so far, but not what I was looking for. >> >> I should have specified that I've done several ns & dig lookups just to >> make sure. >> >> We were supposed to have lit up the last of IPv4 last year. I would have >> presumed that meant that there was nothing left. Since I can't find a >> reference to 172/12 anywhere, one might be led to presume that it was >> allocated somehow, to someone (perhaps inadvertently not recorded) since >> there are - supposedly - no fresh IPv4 addresses left to allocate, and the >> only reference to this block is that 172/8 is allocated to ARIN. It >> doesn't even appear in RFC 5735. >> >> We all know about 172.16/12 - nothing left of that horse but glue. >> >> My question is about 172/12. Where is it, what is it's supposed purpose. >> I'm almost sure it's an internal box. I just find it better to give a >> professional answer to "why can't I use this" than just "you can't use >> this and why is this address scanning you for udp/137 anyway". >> >> If someone can point out to me what was done with 172/12 I'd appreciate >> it. >> >> >> Patrick opined: >> > Read RFC1918. >> >> I didn't remember seeing anything about 172/12 in RFC1918. Looked at it >> again. Is there something about 172/12 I missed? Thanks. >> >> > Likely a machine on his local network (i.e. behind the same NAT box) is >> > hitting him. >> > >> > But that is not guaranteed. A packet with a source address of 172.0.x.x >> > could be hitting his machine. Depends on how well you filter. Many >> > networks only look at destination IP address, source can be anything - >> > spoofed, un-NAT'ed, etc. He just wouldn't be able to send anything back >> > to it (unless it was on the local LAN, as I mention above). >> > >> > -- >> > TTFN, >> > patrick >> > >> > >> > On Jan 15, 2012, at 2:53 AM, Alex Ryu wrote: >> > >> >> As far as I know, 172.0.1.216 is not assigned, yet. >> >> >> >> whois -h whois.arin.net 172.0.1.216 >> >> [whois.arin.net] >> >> # >> >> # Query terms are ambiguous. The query is assumed to be: >> >> # "n 172.0.1.216" >> >> # >> >> # Use "?" to get help. >> >> # >> >> >> >> No match found for 172.0.1.216. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> # >> >> # ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use >> >> # available at: https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html >> >> # >> >> >> >> Also, when you check BGP routing table, it is not routed at all. >> >> >> >> route-server.as3257.net>sh ip bgp 172.0.1.216 >> >> % Network not in table >> >> route-server.as3257.net> >> >> >> >> So it seems like forged IP address. >> >> >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Ted Fischer <t...@fred.net> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >> >>> >> >>> Tearing what's left of my hair out. >> >>> >> >>> A customer is getting scanned by a host claiming to be >> >>> "172.0.1.216". >> >>> >> >>> I know this is bogus, but I want to go back to the customer with as >> >>> much authoritative umph as I can (heaven forbid they just take my >> >>> word). >> >>> >> >>> I'm pretty sure I read somewhere once that 172/12 was "reserved" or >> >>> something like that. All I can find now is that 172/8 is >> >>> "administered >> >>> by >> >>> ARIN". Lots of information on 172.16/12, but not a peep about >> >>> 172/12. >> >>> >> >>> If anybody could provide some insight as to the >> >>> allocation/non-allocation of this block, it would be much appreciated. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks. >> >>> >> >>> Ted Fischer >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > End of NANOG Digest, Vol 48, Issue 41 > ************************************* >
-- Sent from my mobile device
