Issue with 208.192.0.0/8 - 208.196.93.0/24?

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Forgive the intrusion...

Forgiven

We have a customer who uses some merchant services off of
208.196.93.204, which seems to be unreachable via any location I try.
Emails to UUnet's NOC are unaswered and the guy I talked to on the
phone @ UU wouldn't open a ticket because I'm not a customer (but his
traces were dying in the same place as mine:

207.ATM6-0.GW11.NYC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.29.185))

Can anybody out there hit that IP (208.196.93.204) at the moment? Or
indeed much of anything in that /8

[C:\]ping 208.196.93.204
PING 208.196.93.204: 56 data bytes

----208.196.93.204 PING Statistics----
7 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss

[C:\]tracerte 208.196.93.204
0 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms
1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 0 ms 0 ms 8 ms
2 10.20.12.9 (10.20.12.9) 55 ms 55 ms 55 ms
3 ppp-203.144.161.5.revip.asianet.co.th (203.144.161.5) 39 ms 5
4 ppp-203.144.144.157.revip.asianet.co.th (203.144.144.157) 54 m
ms
5 ppp-203.144.144.2.revip.asianet.co.th (203.144.144.2) 242 ms
s
6 211.180.13.225 (211.180.13.225) 133 ms 133 ms 125 ms
7 210.120.192.136 (210.120.192.136) 133 ms 133 ms 132 ms
8 203.255.234.198 (203.255.234.198) 258 ms 203.255.234.210 (203.
266 ms 203.255.234.198 (203.255.234.198) 266 ms
9 203.255.234.36 (203.255.234.36) 250 ms 258 ms 258 ms
10 67.104.60.49 (67.104.60.49) 258 ms 258 ms 281 ms
11 p4-3-0.MAR2.Fremont-CA.us.xo.net (207.88.80.13) 258 ms 258
12 p4-0-0.RAR2.SanJose-CA.us.xo.net (65.106.5.137) 273 ms 266
13 p0-0-0-1.RAR1.SanJose-CA.us.xo.net (65.106.1.65) 266 ms 281
14 p0-0.IR1.PaloAlto-CA.us.xo.net (65.106.5.194) 273 ms 336 ms
15 206.111.12.150 (206.111.12.150) 265 ms 266 ms 258 ms
16 157.at-5-1-0.XR1.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.51.58) 1031 ms 273
17 0.so-0-1-0.XL1.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.53.241) 266 ms * 281
18 0.so-3-0-0.TL1.SAC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.53.250) 273 ms 274 ms
19 0.so-1-2-0.TL1.NYC9.ALTER.NET (152.63.10.77) 352 ms 335 ms
20 0.so-3-0-0.XL1.NYC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.27.29) 321 ms 321 ms
21 0.so-0-0-0.XR1.NYC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.19.85) 336 ms 336 ms
22 207.ATM6-0.GW11.NYC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.29.185) 360 ms 352 m
23 * * *
24 *
[dies]

[C:\]host 208.196.93.204
208.196.93.204 = ecobeauty.org

Jeffrey Race

2

>Emails to UUnet's NOC are unaswered and the guy I talked to on the
>phone @ UU wouldn't open a ticket because I'm not a customer (but his
>traces were dying in the same place as mine:
>
>207.ATM6-0.GW11.NYC1.ALTER.NET (152.63.29.185))
>
>Can anybody out there hit that IP (208.196.93.204) at the moment? Or
>indeed much of anything in that /8

[C:\]ping 208.196.93.204
PING 208.196.93.204: 56 data bytes

----208.196.93.204 PING Statistics----
7 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss

[C:\]tracerte 208.196.93.204
0 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 0 ms 0 ms 0 ms

[skip]

24 *
[dies]

[C:\]host 208.196.93.204
208.196.93.204 = ecobeauty.org

And we are supposed to take "The Ultimate Diagnosis" from a person who
would not think of using tcptrace, telnetting into port 80 or to see if that
was an ACL? Phlease.

Alex

3

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:01:51 +0700
From: Dr. Jeffrey Race

[C:\]ping 208.196.93.204
[C:\]host 208.196.93.204

1. You read the NANOG FAQ, yes? Please explain your post.

2. Did TCP attempts to various well-known ports stay in SYN_SENT,
   switch to CONNECTED, or return a RST? Or did you not try?

Thanks for proving that experience in one sphere doesn't bring
any free credibility in another. You posted what you should not,
and gave the wrong answer at that.

If you want to go around bragging "i'm mad l33t, yo" without
skills to back it up, I suggest IRC as a better medium.

Remember: The majority of the posters here probably have roughly
as much (but not as much) of an ego as you, yet a _lot_ more
experience and skills to back it up. I think the results are
obvious.

Consider being an early adopter of IPv8.

Eddy

4

Remember: The majority of the posters here probably have roughly
as much (but not as much) of an ego as you, yet a _lot_ more
experience and skills to back it up. I think the results are

Altho sometime I have to wonder especially with some of the recent posts.
Perhaps clueful folk should sneak off and form nanog-clueful mailing list :wink:

Steve

5

Shhhh.... the'll all want one.

Peter

6

Please don't; there are many of us lurking who are learning a great deal from
listening in on the conversations of the clueful.