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. Blockin
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 allocate
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 a
"Kevin Oberman" 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 pol
> 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
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
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
>
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 t
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 operato
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 a
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
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
t
12 matches
Mail list logo
