On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:23:56 -0500 (EST)
Jay Ashworth wrote:
> From an intermediate routing standpoint, though, it would be easier
> to add an *adjacent* block, not one halfway across the address space,
> no?
One never knows how the address space is carved up. Changing what
were once deemed rea
They generally use IPDR on the CMTS for accounting, and I don't believe it
counts ARP.
Phil
-Original Message-
From: "Ricky Beam"
Sent: 12/29/2014 11:34 PM
To: "Corey Touchet"
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: Re: Charter ARP Leak
On Mon, 29 Dec
On 12/29/2014 22:32, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 17:41:45 -0500, Corey Touchet
wrote:
We'll I would for one be very interested if the 8 ARP packets a second
count against the caps.
Depends on where and what counters they probe. I would assume they look
at "unicast" fields, so it wo
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 17:41:45 -0500, Corey Touchet
wrote:
We'll I would for one be very interested if the 8 ARP packets a second
count against the caps.
Depends on where and what counters they probe. I would assume they look at
"unicast" fields, so it wouldn't counted. (of course, *I* wou
Well sure they are subnets :-) of 0.0.0.0/4
range: 0.0.0.0 > 15.255.255.255
range b10: 0 > 268435455
range b16: 0x0 > 0xfff
hosts: 268435456
prefixlen: 4
mask:240.0.0.0
Doubt anyone should ever describe them as such unless they own all that space
though. May God res
On 12/29/2014 11:35, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:27:04PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Valdis, you are correct. What your seeing is caused by multiple IP
blocks being assigned to the same CMTS interface.
Am I incorrect, though, in believing that ARP packets should only
ot just that when it comes to garbage received on
your interface either.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of David Coulson
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 12:57 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Charter ARP Leak
Not sure I understand what all the excitement is about?
- Original Message -
> From: "David Coulson"
> We all knows it's easier to add another secondary IP to the interface
> and add a new DHCP scope than to try to expand a subnet.
>From an intermediate routing standpoint, though, it would be easier to
add an *adjacent* block, not one halfwa
The CM is just a bridge for that traffic. It has a management IP assigned to
it by the provider but that's a different network so to speak.
Phil
-Original Message-
From: "Jay Ashworth"
Sent: 12/29/2014 12:52 PM
To: "NANOG"
Subject: Re: Charter ARP Lea
> On Dec 29, 2014, at 11:51 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> Ok. But the interface to which the cablemodem is attached, in the general
> single-DHCP-IP case, is a /24, is it not?
No, I've seen multiple IPv4 /21s assigned to a single customer interface on a
CMTS. The newer CMTS are beastly large b
On 12/29/14, 12:51 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Ok. But the interface to which the cablemodem is attached, in the general
single-DHCP-IP case, is a /24, is it not?
I'm on TWC. The IP address I get from them is on a /20.
104.230.32.0/20 dev eth7 proto kernel scope link src 104.230.32.x
The e
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:12:34AM -0600, Rampley Jr, Jim F wrote:
> On 12/29/14, 10:49 AM, "valdis.kletni...@vt.edu"
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 03:44:48 +, "Stephen R. Carter" said:
> >> Here is a small excerpt I am seeing.
> >>
> >> 06:04:04.760869 In 00:21:a0:fb:53:d9 > ff:ff:ff:f
- Original Message -
> From: "Brett Frankenberger"
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:27:04PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > >
> > > Valdis, you are correct. What your seeing is caused by multiple IP
> > > blocks being assigned to the same CMTS interface.
> >
> > Am I incorrect, though, in beli
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 12:27:04PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> >
> > Valdis, you are correct. What your seeing is caused by multiple IP
> > blocks being assigned to the same CMTS interface.
>
> Am I incorrect, though, in believing that ARP packets should only be visible
> within a broadcast doma
- Original Message -
> From: "Rampley Jr, Jim F"
> On 12/29/14, 10:49 AM, "valdis.kletni...@vt.edu"
>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 03:44:48 +, "Stephen R. Carter" said:
> >> Here is a small excerpt I am seeing.
> >>
> >> 06:04:04.760869 In 00:21:a0:fb:53:d9 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff,
On 12/29/14, 10:49 AM, "valdis.kletni...@vt.edu"
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 03:44:48 +, "Stephen R. Carter" said:
>> Here is a small excerpt I am seeing.
>>
>> 06:04:04.760869 In 00:21:a0:fb:53:d9 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype
>>ARP (0x0806), length 60: arp who-has 97.85.59.219 tell 9
This is normal for a cable modem network. These are broadcast packets so
they get delivered to everybody on that node.
ARP uses layer-2 broadcast to ask for the owner of a given IP to respond
with its MAC so that subsequent communication with that IP can be addressed
directly.
[sent from mobile d
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 03:44:48 +, "Stephen R. Carter" said:
> Here is a small excerpt I am seeing.
>
> 06:04:04.760869 In 00:21:a0:fb:53:d9 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype ARP
> (0x0806), length 60: arp who-has 97.85.59.219 tell 97.85.58.1
> 06:04:04.761950 In 00:21:a0:fb:53:d9 > ff:ff:ff:ff:f
18 matches
Mail list logo
