nanog mailing list archives
Re: 198.32.64.12 -- Harmless mis-route or potential exploit?
From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 22:08:10 -0400
On 9/2/08, Todd Underwood <todd-nanog () renesys com> wrote:
checking our current data, that block is not currently routed by any of our peers over the last month (i would assume ripe ris and routeviews report similar data, but i did not check them.
it's also probably worth stating that parts of 198.32/16 are never routed anywhere on the Internet (here comes bill to tell me 'who's Internet?' .....). Some is in use on private networks, some is in use at exchange points and not routed outside the immediate peers. Most times, as I recall, epnet does a decent job of keeping the whois data or rdns data updated though, for things in use. (though possibly not for private uses) -chris
Current thread:
- Re: self-promotion [was: 198.32.64.12 -- Harmless mis-route or potential exploit?], (continued)
- Re: self-promotion [was: 198.32.64.12 -- Harmless mis-route or potential exploit?] Gadi Evron (Sep 02)
- Re: self-promotion [was: 198.32.64.12 -- Harmless mis-route or Joe Greco (Sep 03)
- Re: self-promotion [was: 198.32.64.12 -- Harmless mis-route or Steven M. Bellovin (Sep 03)
- Re: self-promotion [was: 198.32.64.12 -- Harmless mis-route or Lamar Owen (Sep 03)
- Re: 198.32.64.12 -- Harmless mis-route or potential exploit? Aaron Glenn (Sep 02)
- Re: 198.32.64.12 -- Harmless mis-route or potential exploit? micky coughes (Sep 02)
- Re: 198.32.64.12 -- Harmless mis-route or potential exploit? Gadi Evron (Sep 02)
- Re: 198.32.64.12 -- Harmless mis-route or potential exploit? Todd Underwood (Sep 02)
- Re: 198.32.64.12 -- Harmless mis-route or potential exploit? Christopher Morrow (Sep 02)
- Re: 198.32.64.12 -- Harmless mis-route or potential exploit? bmanning (Sep 03)
- Re: 198.32.64.12 -- Harmless mis-route or potential exploit? Christopher Morrow (Sep 03)
- Re: 198.32.64.12 -- Harmless mis-route or potential exploit? bmanning (Sep 03)