[138761] in North American Network Operators' Group
213.123.192.0/20 | 193.179.160.0/22 | 174.132.0.0/15 | 65.75.128.0/18
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gavin Pearce)
Tue Mar 15 07:47:49 2011
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 11:47:37 -0000
In-Reply-To: <A493C7A9BBA74B209588278EF83A6E5B@bb.local>
From: "Gavin Pearce" <Gavin.Pearce@3seven9.com>
To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Morning all - anyone here responsible for any of the following:
213.123.192.0/20 (BT-ADSL)
193.179.160.0/22 (KULAJ-NET)
174.132.0.0/15 (NETBLK-THEPLANET-BLK-15)
65.75.128.0/18 (MSG-65-75-128-0)
Abuse/Technical contacts gone unanswered for each (mailed 1 - 2 months
ago). *sigh*
Getting multiple brute force and/or spam from single IPs within those
ranges against different devices on different dates.
Gav
-----Original Message-----
From: Masato YAMANISHI [mailto:myamanis@japan-telecom.com]=20
Sent: 14 March 2011 16:16
To: 'Marshall Eubanks'; 'NANOG list'
Subject: RE: Rush to Fix Quake-Damaged Undersea Cables
Hi Marshall and all,
> About half of the existing cables running across the Pacific=20
> are damaged ...
>=20
> It that realistic ? That seems like much more damage than=20
> anything I have heard or seen.
Yes, it's definetely true.
Rgs,
Masato=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@americafree.tv]=20
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 8:54 AM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Rush to Fix Quake-Damaged Undersea Cables
>=20
> In this WSJ article
>=20
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487048936045761999
> 52421569210.html
>=20
> or
>=20
> http://on.wsj.com/gaPk8V=20
>=20
> This caught my eye :
>=20
> About half of the existing cables running across the Pacific=20
> are damaged ...
>=20
> It that realistic ? That seems like much more damage than=20
> anything I have heard or seen.
>=20
> Regards
> Marshall=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
