NETCOM.NET

Philip Wood cpw at lanl.gov
Mon Apr 8 21:49:47 UTC 1996


Folks, 

I wanted an answer to a simple question about network 1/8 that netcom is
routing today.  But, netcom has no obvious phone number for a noc.

We default out esnet and thus the following traceroute:

traceroute to 1.144.153.46 (1.144.153.46), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
 1  lanl-gw (192.16.1.1)  4 ms  3 ms  3 ms
 2  esnet-rt1 (192.16.1.241)  4 ms  2 ms  4 ms
 3  llnl-atms.es.net (134.55.24.1)  82 ms  98 ms  206 ms
 4  ames-llnl.es.net (134.55.4.161)  41 ms  41 ms  46 ms
 5  scl-ca-gw3.netcom.net (163.179.51.16)  68 ms  67 ms  55 ms
 6  * t3-1.chw-il-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.220.189)  134 ms  229 ms
 7  * * chw-il-gw3.netcom.net (163.179.132.26)  121 ms
 8  t1-2.chi-il-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.220.222)  117 ms  106 ms *
 9  chi-il-gw12.netcom.net (163.179.17.31)  114 ms  122 ms  105 ms
10  chi-il-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.17.1)  113 ms  120 ms  119 ms
11  chi-il-gw12.netcom.net (163.179.17.31)  118 ms  117 ms *
12  chi-il-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.17.1)  143 ms  105 ms  157 ms
13  * chi-il-gw12.netcom.net (163.179.17.31)  110 ms  121 ms
14  chi-il-gw1.netcom.net (163.179.17.1)  121 ms  194 ms *
15  * * chi-il-gw12.netcom.net (163.179.17.31)  116 ms

Looks like they have a little problem in chicago.

WHOIS says:

NETCOM On-line Communications Services (NETCOM2-DOM)
   4000 Moorpark Ave, Suite 209
   San Jose, CA 95117

   Domain Name: NETCOM.NET

   Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
      Hood, Robert  (RH505)  hoodr at NETCOM.COM
      (408) 983-1510

   Record last updated on 02-Apr-93.
   Record created on 02-Apr-93.

   Domain servers in listed order:

   NETCOMSV.NETCOM.COM          192.100.81.101
   NS.NETCOM.COM                192.100.81.105

But, that number gets you into trying to find someone to talk to by punching
numbers, non of which are appropriate.

We are getting a number of probes from various network 1 host
address.  As well as generating some packets with network 1 source addresses 
ourselves.  (these are now blocked, we try to only send packets from networks
we are responsible for)

Anyone have an idea what is causing this?  Should I be worried?

Thanks,

Phil



More information about the NANOG mailing list