[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Whois 172/12
- Subject: Whois 172/12
- From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore)
- Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 02:58:11 -0500
- In-reply-to: <CAM9zEH7nU0Z55xzc81a8Z7GfKT_asp2BPA_vG5Cesj7dn=xftg@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <CAM9zEH7nU0Z55xzc81a8Z7GfKT_asp2BPA_vG5Cesj7dn=xftg@mail.gmail.com>
Read RFC1918.
Likely a machine on his local network (i.e. behind the same NAT box) is hitting him.
But that is not guaranteed. A packet with a source address of 172.0.x.x could be hitting his machine. Depends on how well you filter. Many networks only look at destination IP address, source can be anything - spoofed, un-NAT'ed, etc. He just wouldn't be able to send anything back to it (unless it was on the local LAN, as I mention above).
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Jan 15, 2012, at 2:53 AM, Alex Ryu wrote:
> As far as I know, 172.0.1.216 is not assigned, yet.
>
> whois -h whois.arin.net 172.0.1.216
> [whois.arin.net]
> #
> # Query terms are ambiguous. The query is assumed to be:
> # "n 172.0.1.216"
> #
> # Use "?" to get help.
> #
>
> No match found for 172.0.1.216.
>
>
>
> #
> # ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use
> # available at: https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html
> #
>
> Also, when you check BGP routing table, it is not routed at all.
>
> route-server.as3257.net>sh ip bgp 172.0.1.216
> % Network not in table
> route-server.as3257.net>
>
> So it seems like forged IP address.
>
> Alex
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:37 AM, Ted Fischer <ted at fred.net> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Tearing what's left of my hair out.
>>
>> A customer is getting scanned by a host claiming to be "172.0.1.216".
>>
>> I know this is bogus, but I want to go back to the customer with as
>> much authoritative umph as I can (heaven forbid they just take my
>> word).
>>
>> I'm pretty sure I read somewhere once that 172/12 was "reserved" or
>> something like that. All I can find now is that 172/8 is "administered by
>> ARIN". Lots of information on 172.16/12, but not a peep about
>> 172/12.
>>
>> If anybody could provide some insight as to the
>> allocation/non-allocation of this block, it would be much appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Ted Fischer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>