At 10:50 am +0100 2004/05/31, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
>On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 11:18:09AM +0200, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
>> well, after having seen that DNS report I would think before giving
>> you a try... and it is "versatility"...
>
>I'm just amused by its insistence that:
> 67.19.7.138 is not a public IP
>
>(and .139)
>
>(Because I'm lazy, I'll use routeviews.org, but:
> :; host -t txt 138.7.19.67.asn.routeviews.org
> 138.7.19.67.asn.routeviews.org text "21844" "67.19.0.0" "17"
>
>So 67.19.0.0/17 is advertised out of AS21844, in what way is that not
>"public"?
>
I have no idea. It is also inconsistent as it then reports the
success of various tests that require it to connect to this "private"
address... (Of course, in principle, even connections to really
private [and reserved] addresses can work from a particular host..)
Giuliano
