Senderbase is offbase, need some help

Larry Sheldon LarrySheldon at
Sun Apr 18 19:42:49 CDT 2010

On 4/18/2010 16:02, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:15 AM, gordon b slater <gordslater at> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-04-17 at 16:45 -0400, William Herrin wrote:
>>> Interesting; I see similar results for my address space. Two
>>> addresses, one of which hasn't been attached to a machine for a decade
>>> and the other a virtual IP on a web server where the particular IP
>>> never emits connections. Magnitude's only "0.48" for both but still,
>>> they shouldn't even appear.
>> Yep, same here, at two seperate sites. It's in the "reserved for extreme
>> emergencies" zone at the top of each assigned block. As per house
>> practice it is tcpdumped 24/7, and has been for the last 4 years. Zero
>> traffic from it at the perimiter.
>> Go figure.
>> Gord
> Have you checked cyclops and other BGP announcement tracking systems
> to see if it might have been a short-lived whack-a-mole short prefix hijack
> (pop up, announce block, send burst of spam, remove announcement, disappear
> again)?

Maybe I'm just tired and cranky or too old to understand.....if the
addresses in question never send traffic, who cares?

And if senderbase is so bad, why use it?

Somebody should have said:
A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting
the vote.

Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca

ICBM Targeting Information:


More information about the NANOG mailing list