Senderbase is offbase, need some help

Larry Sheldon LarrySheldon at cox.net
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 ieee.org> 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:  http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml

	




More information about the NANOG mailing list