On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 14:05 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Jesus. 172.16/12 fine .. that's rfc1918. The rest of 172/8 is mostly
unallocated.
And for almost all of it, there is Team Cymru:
show ip route 172.0.0.0
Routing entry for 172.0.0.0/9, supernet
Known via bgp, distance 20,
On 15 Jan 2012, at 07:39, 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
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
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
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
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
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
so as a stylistic point, 172/12 is supposed to equal 172.0.0.0/12?
Yeah...it's pretty common to drop the zeros when talkind CIDR.
if memory serves, back in the day, there were records of allocations in
this space,
On Jan 15, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
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?
My advice is not to post when you are tired. :)
--
TTFN,
patrick
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
. 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
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:
quoteJesus. 172.16/12 fine .. that's rfc1918. The rest of 172/8 is mostly
unallocated./quote
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.
-
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
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012, Ted Fischer wrote:
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
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
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 could
be hitting his machine. Depends on how well you filter. Many networks only
look at destination IP address, source
16 matches
Mail list logo
