On Dec 4, 2010, at 1:43 09AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 20:00:15 -0500
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:24:16 PST, Leo Bicknell said:
It is speculated that no later than Q1, two more /8's will be allocated,
triggering
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:02:40 PST, somebody said:
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 20:00:15 -0500
224/3
Oh. And don't forget to do *bidirectional* filtering of these addresses.
;)
Ahh, not quite. Blocking 224/3 bi-directionally
Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net writes:
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 20:00:15 -0500
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:24:16 PST, Leo Bicknell said:
It is speculated that no later than Q1, two more /8's will be allocated,
triggering a policy
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 20:00:15 -0500
224/3
Oh. And don't forget to do *bidirectional* filtering of these addresses. ;)
Ahh, not quite. Blocking 224/3 bi-directionally might cause a few issues
if you accept multicast traffic from
We have run into an issue with the 107.7.0.0/16 assigned to us several
months ago. It appears that many sites have not yet accepted this space. I
understand this is not a normal type post to NANOG, but hoped to get the
word out to as many operators as possible. Does anyone know of a better way
Got an address we can ping?
On 12/3/10 2:09 PM, Dustin Swinford wrote:
We have run into an issue with the 107.7.0.0/16 assigned to us several
months ago. It appears that many sites have not yet accepted this space. I
understand this is not a normal type post to NANOG, but hoped to get the
On 12/3/2010 4:09 PM, Dustin Swinford wrote:
We have run into an issue with the 107.7.0.0/16 assigned to us several
months ago. It appears that many sites have not yet accepted this space. I
understand this is not a normal type post to NANOG, but hoped to get the
word out to as many operators
On 12/3/2010 14:09, Dustin Swinford wrote:
We have run into an issue with the 107.7.0.0/16 assigned to us several
months ago. It appears that many sites have not yet accepted this space. I
understand this is not a normal type post to NANOG, but hoped to get the
word out to as many operators
On 12/03/2010 02:13 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 12/3/2010 4:09 PM, Dustin Swinford wrote:
We have run into an issue with the 107.7.0.0/16 assigned to us several
months ago. It appears that many sites have not yet accepted this
space. I
understand this is not a normal type post to NANOG, but hoped
In a message written on Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 04:13:58PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
The first takers in a space are hit the hardest. Rementioning here is
important. Do a google search and find any pages still mentioning
blocking the range. Contact them and ask them to update. Then you have
to
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:24:16 PST, Leo Bicknell said:
It is speculated that no later than Q1, two more /8's will be allocated,
triggering a policy that will give the remaining 5 /8's out to the
RIR's. That means, prior to end of Q1, the bogon list will be:
0/8
10/8
127/8
172.16/12
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 20:00:15 -0500
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:24:16 PST, Leo Bicknell said:
It is speculated that no later than Q1, two more /8's will be allocated,
triggering a policy that will give the remaining 5 /8's out
12 matches
Mail list logo
