nanog mailing list archives
Re: AT&T Broadband
From: Christopher Schulte <schulte+nanog-post () nospam schulte org>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:26:03 -0600
At 09:45 AM 12/18/2001 -0600, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote:
Howdy,Anyone know what's up with AT&T Broadband in Minnesota? They appear to be blocking *everything* from 24/8 to 24/8 that isn't port 25/tcp 110/tcp 80/tcp 443/tcp, or icmp. Everything else is being dropped into a growing black hole..
Please clarify:You live on 24/8 as an ATT broadband subscriber. You try to communicate with another ATT broadband subscriber on 24/8. Your outbound packets to said subscriber on 24/8 are dropped unless destination port is one of tcp ports 25, 110, 80, 443 or icmp. The rest of your outbound packets to the internet as a whole are forwarded as usual.
Is that a reasonable re-wording of your original post?
Thanks, Matthew S. Hallacy
-c
Current thread:
- AT&T Broadband Matthew S. Hallacy (Dec 18)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: AT&T Broadband Christopher Schulte (Dec 18)
- Re: AT&T Broadband Matthew S. Hallacy (Dec 18)
- Re: AT&T Broadband Majdi S. Abbas (Dec 18)
- RE: AT&T Broadband Vivien M. (Dec 18)
- Re: AT&T Broadband Peter Galbavy (Dec 19)
- Re: AT&T Broadband Simon Higgs (Dec 18)
- RE: AT&T Broadband James (Dec 19)
- RE: AT&T Broadband Simon Higgs (Dec 20)
- RE: AT&T Broadband John A. Tamplin (Dec 20)
- RE: AT&T Broadband Miles Fidelman (Dec 20)
- Re: AT&T Broadband Peter Galbavy (Dec 21)
- Re: AT&T Broadband Matthew S. Hallacy (Dec 18)