nanog mailing list archives
Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 38
From: "Bruno VAZ" <bvaz () ipercast net>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:12:17 +0000
---
[Message envoyé a partir d'un mobile]
Bruno VAZ
Ipercast Operations
40, Rue de PARIS / 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt
Tel +33 1 72 77 70 87
Mailbvaz () ipercast net
-----Original Message-----
From: nanog-request () nanog org
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:59:40
To: <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 38
Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
nanog () nanog org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
nanog-request () nanog org
You can reach the person managing the list at
nanog-owner () nanog org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. RE: duplicate packet (Darden, Patrick S.)
2. RE: duplicate packet (Eric Van Tol)
3. Re: duplicate packet (Jon Lewis)
4. Re: duplicate packet (Sebastian Abt)
5. RE: duplicate packet (Tim Sanderson)
6. Re: duplicate packet (Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr.)
7. Re: Yahoo! mail admins? (Matthew Petach)
8. Re: ingress SMTP (*Hobbit*)
9. New (2-byte) ASN Allocation for RIPE NCC (Leo Vegoda)
10. Teleglobe appears to be spam-source zombie network? (Jo Rhett)
11. Re: Teleglobe appears to be spam-source zombie network?
(Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom)
12. Re: Teleglobe appears to be spam-source zombie network?
(Marshall Eubanks)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:01:32 -0400
From: "Darden, Patrick S." <darden () armc org>
Subject: RE: duplicate packet
To: "chloe K" <chloekcy2000 () yahoo ca>, <nanog () nanog org>
Message-ID: <CBE22E5FF427B149A272DD1DDE107524023688B6 () EX2K3 armc org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Check your ARP tables, local and on intervening switches/routers. Make sure there are no duplicate entries for that
IP. If you note the response time, the second packet is always higher which might be indicative. I would also check
for a botched MITM a la C&A.
Even if there is no obvious ARP table manglement, you might try flushing the local and intervening caches.
Try the ping from another host, another subnet, another segment, get more info.
--p
-----Original Message-----
From: chloe K [mailto:chloekcy2000 () yahoo ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 6:46 AM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: duplicate packet
Hi all
When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate
I check the ip is just one. Why it happens?
Thank you
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.296 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.328 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=0.291 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=0.316 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=0.279 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=0.309 ms (DUP!)
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=0.271 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=0.299 ms (DUP!)
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it
now!
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:06:02 -0400
From: Eric Van Tol <eric () atlantech net>
Subject: RE: duplicate packet
To: 'chloe K' <chloekcy2000 () yahoo ca>, "nanog () nanog org"
<nanog () nanog org>
Message-ID:
<2C05E949E19A9146AF7BDF9D44085B86350AECC45F@exchange.aoihq.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
-----Original Message----- From: chloe K [mailto:chloekcy2000 () yahoo ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 6:46 AM To: nanog () nanog org Subject: duplicate packet Hi all When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate I check the ip is just one. Why it happens? Thank you 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.296 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.328 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=0.291 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=0.316 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=0.279 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=0.309 ms (DUP!) 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=0.271 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=0.299 ms (DUP!)
Check to see whether or not the port connected to that host is mirrored or in a SPAN VLAN. Misconfiguration on an analyzer server can cause duplicate traffic to be generated. -evt ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:11:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Jon Lewis <jlewis () lewis org> Subject: Re: duplicate packet To: chloe K <chloekcy2000 () yahoo ca> Cc: nanog () nanog org Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0809100808070.5503 () soloth lewis org> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, chloe K wrote:
When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate I check the ip is just one. Why it happens? 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!)
Not enough information has been given. Just hope it's not being caused by a Level3/Sprint circuit...ours is still doing this (when I change back to HDLC) and they just don't freaking care. Sometimes I wish I worked for a big telco so I could leave things broken and say "hey, I'm the telco, I don't have to care." Maybe we should refuse to pay for the affected DS3 and see if that gets more attention. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:11:48 +0200 From: Sebastian Abt <sabt () sabt net> Subject: Re: duplicate packet To: chloe K <chloekcy2000 () yahoo ca> Cc: nanog () nanog org Message-ID: <20080910121148.GA4491 () sephina sabt net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii * chloe K wrote:
When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!)
^^^^^^^^^^^^
What's your netmask? Is 192.168.0.95 your net's broadcast address?
sebastian
--
SABT-RIPE PGPKEY-D008DA9C
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:26:52 -0400
From: Tim Sanderson <tims () donet com>
Subject: RE: duplicate packet
To: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org>
Message-ID:
<C8780EC81EAFB24B94943243BA5BCC54292289670F () intexch07 internal donet com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Instead, dispute the bill and then when they won't credit you for not giving you what you ordered, open a complaint
with the state public utilities commission. It may get you some movement on the issue.
--
Tim Sanderson, network administrator
tims () donet com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jlewis () lewis org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:11 AM
To: chloe K
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: duplicate packet
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, chloe K wrote:
When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate I check the ip is just one. Why it happens? 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!)
Not enough information has been given. Just hope it's not being caused by a Level3/Sprint circuit...ours is still doing this (when I change back to HDLC) and they just don't freaking care. Sometimes I wish I worked for a big telco so I could leave things broken and say "hey, I'm the telco, I don't have to care." Maybe we should refuse to pay for the affected DS3 and see if that gets more attention. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:10:20 -0500 From: "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <LarrySheldon () cox net> Subject: Re: duplicate packet Cc: nanog () nanog org Message-ID: <48C7C73C.7000900 () cox net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sebastian Abt wrote:
* chloe K wrote:When I ping the ip, I get the duplicate 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.344 ms 64 bytes from 192.168.0.95: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.401 ms (DUP!)^^^^^^^^^^^^ What's your netmask? Is 192.168.0.95 your net's broadcast address?
Ohhh! Nice catch!
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:13:18 -0700
From: "Matthew Petach" <mpetach () netflight com>
Subject: Re: Yahoo! mail admins?
To: "Paul Kelly :: Blacknight" <paul () blacknight com>
Cc: "nanog () nanog org" <nanog () nanog org>
Message-ID:
<63ac96a50809100613k3f9f2499p9270dbc5b7a82533 () mail gmail com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 9/10/08, Paul Kelly :: Blacknight <paul () blacknight com> wrote:
Hi There, Are there any Yahoo! e-mail admins on the list? We're having some issues at times delivering e-mail to yahoo.co.uk and sometimes some of the other yahoo networks.
Probably not--but folks can probably get the message to the right ears. Let me know off list the nature of the issue (layer 3 reachability vs layer 7 application error messages) and I'll see what I can do to get the message to the right recipients. Thanks! Matt
Thanks, Paul Paul Kelly Technical Director Blacknight Internet Solutions ltd Hosting, Colocation, Dedicated servers IP Transit Services Tel: +353 (0) 59 9183072 Lo-call: 1850 929 929 DDI: +353 (0) 59 9183091 e-mail: paul () blacknight ie web: http://www.blacknight.ie Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park, Sleaty Road, Graiguecullen, Carlow, Ireland Company No.: 370845
------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:35:24 +0000 (GMT) From: hobbit () avian org (*Hobbit*) Subject: Re: ingress SMTP To: nanog () nanog org Message-ID: <20080910123524.3D97E7808 () relayer avian org> I am completely convinced that abuse@ in most big providers is a black hole with an autoresponder hung off it, and nothing ever gets done with complaints. NO HUMAN ever sees them, and even if they did, most of the humans at these outfits wouldn't recognize a Received: header if it bit them in the ass. I invite and welcome anyone from the "big boyz" I named in the original question -- verizon, comcast, roadrunner, charter, bellsouth/SBC, and now Google -- *especially* Gmail, given that counterproductive "privacy" policy we noted -- to inform me otherwise. _H* ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:38:44 -0700 From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda () icann org> Subject: New (2-byte) ASN Allocation for RIPE NCC To: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda () icann org> Message-ID: <C4EDA894.1EC4C%leo.vegoda () icann org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, This is to confirm that the IANA has allocated one 2-byte ASN block to the RIPE NCC: 48128-49151 Assigned by RIPE NCC whois.ripe.net 2008-09-09 A note of the allocation has been made at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xml http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.xhtml http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers/as-numbers.txt Thank you and best regards, Leo Vegoda leo.vegoda () icann org ******************************************* Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Phone: +1-310-823-9358 Fax: +1-310-823-8649 ******************************************* -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFIx9suvBLymJnAzRwRAgnkAKDDxJCilYy0aErDQtQQFEcsCKG/QwCgi+Ao 029EI3Ful4LKPXMJEUGKs3g= =7EeD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:47:26 -0700 From: Jo Rhett <jrhett () netconsonance com> Subject: Teleglobe appears to be spam-source zombie network? To: nanog <nanog () nanog org> Message-ID: <03F411FC-74D6-48CA-84FC-16706B05BADE () netconsonance com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes We started getting a flood of autobot spam to our listed abuse mailbox about an hour ago out of Teleglobe. Trying to find someone to shut this down has found that 1. Teleglobe has no listed abuse contacts for any of their netblocks 2. The few of their records which have listed e-mail addresses all bounce 3. All listed phone numbers on any netblocks we can find are invalid Any chance that RIPE is more strigent than ARIN and would pull their netblocks until they fix this stuff? -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:51:09 +0100 (WEST) From: Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom <nuno.vieira () nfsi pt> Subject: Re: Teleglobe appears to be spam-source zombie network? To: Jo Rhett <jrhett () netconsonance com> Cc: nanog <nanog () nanog org> Message-ID: <823080104.21701221076269458.JavaMail.root () zimbra nfsi pt> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Try reach them at CAbuse () tatacommunications com cheers, --- Nuno Vieira nfsi telecom, lda. nuno.vieira () nfsi pt Tel. (+351) 21 949 2300 - Fax (+351) 21 949 2301 http://www.nfsi.pt/ ----- "Jo Rhett" <jrhett () netconsonance com> wrote:
We started getting a flood of autobot spam to our listed abuse mailbox about an hour ago out of Teleglobe. Trying to find someone to shut this down has found that 1. Teleglobe has no listed abuse contacts for any of their netblocks 2. The few of their records which have listed e-mail addresses all bounce 3. All listed phone numbers on any netblocks we can find are invalid Any chance that RIPE is more strigent than ARIN and would pull their netblocks until they fix this stuff? -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:59:35 -0400 From: Marshall Eubanks <tme () multicasttech com> Subject: Re: Teleglobe appears to be spam-source zombie network? To: Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom <nuno.vieira () nfsi pt> Cc: nanog <nanog () nanog org> Message-ID: <0B1059FF-6187-4212-A666-3124BFB38E88 () multicasttech com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes On Sep 10, 2008, at 3:51 PM, Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom wrote:
Try reach them at CAbuse () tatacommunications com
Yes - all my teleglobe contacts went over to Tata email addresses during the summer. Regards Marshall
cheers, --- Nuno Vieira nfsi telecom, lda. nuno.vieira () nfsi pt Tel. (+351) 21 949 2300 - Fax (+351) 21 949 2301 http://www.nfsi.pt/ ----- "Jo Rhett" <jrhett () netconsonance com> wrote:We started getting a flood of autobot spam to our listed abuse mailbox about an hour ago out of Teleglobe. Trying to find someone to shut this down has found that 1. Teleglobe has no listed abuse contacts for any of their netblocks 2. The few of their records which have listed e-mail addresses all bounce 3. All listed phone numbers on any netblocks we can find are invalid Any chance that RIPE is more strigent than ARIN and would pull their netblocks until they fix this stuff? -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source and other randomness
------------------------------ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG () nanog org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog End of NANOG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 38 ************************************
Current thread:
- Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 38 Bruno VAZ (Sep 10)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 8, Issue 38 Bruno VAZ (Sep 10)