Mailing List Archive

NETCOM.NET
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@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
Re: NETCOM.NET [ In reply to ]
Net 1 was used as the default network if not otherwise overwritten
during the config process by older gear from Ascend and Telebit.
Perhaps NETCOM is/has just deployed some of same.




>
>
> 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@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
>


--
--bill