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
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
age-
> 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 look
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Jon Lewis 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
rep
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 wrote:
> Jesus. 172.16/12 fine .. that's rfc1918. The rest of 172/8 is mostly
> unallocated.
>
> What's with the language?
>
> Eph
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 wrote:
> Read RFC1918.
>
> Likely a machine on his local network (i.e. behind the same NAT box
t;> > Subject: Re: Whois 172/12
>> > From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"
>> > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 02:58:11 -0500
>> > To: NANOG list
>> >
>> > Read RFC1918.
>> >
>> > Likely a machine on his local network (i.e. behind
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
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 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"
> > Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 02:58:11 -0500
> 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"
> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 02:58:11 -0500
> To: NANOG list
>
> Read RFC1918.
>
> Likely a machine on his local n
On 15 Jan 2012, at 09:20, "Ted Fischer" wrote:
> My question is about 172/12. Where is it, what is it's supposed purpose.
See IANA which tells you at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml
That ARIN is handling it. As their whois does not have anything for
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 2:20 AM, Ted Fischer wrote:
> 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
>
Not a good assumption. There remains IPv4 address space that has not yet
been assigned to 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 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
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
refere
On 15 Jan 2012, at 07:39, "Ted Fischer" 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 f
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
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
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 somew
19 matches
Mail list logo
