RE: Christmas spam from RESERVED IANA adressblock ?

Hi, It is private address space, like 10.0.0.0/8, completely valid for internal communication which it appears to be. Regards, Steve -Original Message- From: macbroadcast [mailto:m...@let.de] Sent: Wednesday, 24 December 2008 9:48 PM To: NANOG list Subject: Christmas spam from RESERVED

RE: isprime DOS in progress

Hi, I agree with seeing no traffic to/from 66.230.128.15 but am still seeing flows 'from' 66.230.160.1 Regards, Steve -Original Message- From: Phil Rosenthal [mailto:p...@isprime.com] Sent: Saturday, 24 January 2009 4:12 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: isprime DOS in progress Just

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Hi, I find it a shame that NAT-PT has become depreciated, with people talking about carrier grade NATS I think combining these with NAT-PT could help with the transition after we run out of IPv4 space. ISP gets a chunk of IPv6 address space, sets up customers with it, gets their big lovely carrie

RE: IPv6 Confusion

Basically that is what I was thinking, not sure could say problem solved as would still be using big nat boxes, but if we are going to 'have' to have nat, why not in a form that encourages adoption of IPv6? Having have said that, from someone else's comment would have to agree with them about u

RE: uceprotect.net

Hi, I could be wrong but I think that they are only referring to the forward hostname advertised in the mail servers HELO, it is obvious that most systems have many more forward A records than reverse PTR records. Regards, Steve -Original Message- From: Drew Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT