Eircom decide to crash the h'Interweb !

spongebob

Do an NSLOOKUP from any DNS server you may think of.

type the following hostname(s) and see what happens.

filer5-b.indigo.ie
filer4-b.indigo.ie
filer3-b.indigo.ie
filer2-b.indigo.ie
filer1-b.indigo.ie

and especially 3 !!!!!!!!!

We all know who owns Indigo so WTF is going on and how did this propogate ?

M

seamus

Explain please

spongebob

> filer3-b.indigo.ie

Server: auth01.ns.eircom.net
Address: 159.134.237.61

filer3-b.indigo.ie internet address = 192.168.1.1
indigo.ie nameserver = auth01.ns.eircom.net
indigo.ie nameserver = auth02.ns.eircom.net
indigo.ie nameserver = auth03.ns.eircom.net
auth01.ns.eircom.net internet address = 159.134.237.61
auth02.ns.eircom.net internet address = 159.134.237.59
auth03.ns.eircom.net internet address = 159.134.191.34

M

rob1891

kinda silly they're there but what would it break?

echomadman

filer3-b.indigo.ie internet address = 192.168.1.1


Non-authoritative answer:
Name: filer2-b.indigo.ie
Address: 192.168.3.2

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: filer1-b.indigo.ie
Address: 192.168.1.51



0_o

192.168.x.x ?

Fill us in muck, i haven't had my requisite 4 coffes this morning, I'm not firing on all cylinders

maxheadroom

from http://www.samspade.org/t/lookat?a=192.168.1.51
192.168.1.51 is an IP address reserved for non-routed networks. That means it may be used on any number of private networks and doesn't connect to the internet at large (except, maybe, via application level gateways or NATs). See RFC1918 Address Allocation for Private Internets

seamus

Ah, brain not firing on all cylinders today.

Probably just a record they have for internal use.....probably not a great idea to have it available to the internet though......

(For anyone else who missed it, 192.168.x.x is a private address range).

This could probably interfere with other networks using these address, and using DNS servers for internal hostname resolution, yes pa?

spongebob

Apparently this has been going on for a while

http://iiu.taint.org/pipermail/iiu/2003-June/003142.html

M

crawler

Me thinks a spanking from RIPE/IEDR would be in order.....

Very very bold lads.

Maybe they have placed this the wrong side of some FW or have made a boobs up of NAT somewhere along the line?

crawler

Not to mention this entry is completely totally and utterly pointless....

Thinking about it - probably no so much "bold" as "daft"

Ro

This hasn't propogated anywhere - it's a few records on Eircoms DNS servers. So unless you use their servers it won't effect you. I don't see how it would effect anyone using the 192.168.x.x block anyway as anyone that's using DNS for that range will more than likely have their own private DNS servers and they should answer the forward and reverse lookups first.

spongebob

it HAS propogated

nslookup

enter the following strings at the > prompt to query DNS servers other than your own , I enclose Colt and IOL to get ya going!

> server ns0.uk.colt.net
Default Server: ns0.uk.colt.net
Address: 195.110.64.10

> filer3-b.indigo.ie
Server: ns0.uk.colt.net
Address: 195.110.64.10

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: filer3-b.indigo.ie
Address: 192.168.1.1

> server ns.iol.ie
Default Server: ns.iol.ie
Address: 194.125.2.240

> filer3-b.indigo.ie
Server: ns.iol.ie
Address: 194.125.2.240

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: filer3-b.indigo.ie
Address: 192.168.1.1

M

jd

Originally posted by Muck
it HAS propogated

M

eh ok..
what about a reverse lookup though..

Calibos

As the great Austin Powers once said, "But what does it all mean Basil?" :D

Moriarty

Zoink.

Ro

Originally posted by Muck
it HAS propogated

It will propogate if you keep looking them up on different dns servers The point I was trying (badly) to make is that it doesn't really matter about the A records and the reverse records for 192.168.x.x can't propogate because those servers aren't authoritative.

cgarvey

Is it against an RFC to serve private IP ranges for a domain?

I know of places that use internal.domain.com subdomain.. and rather than set up an internal DNS server, they just use their host's DNS interface.

It doesn't break anything surely... but is it against an RFC?

.cg

bricks

I seen this when I did a listing of the DNS records.
There is a load of them in there.
In the forward direction , who cares. But in the reverse direction its anoying to see Eircom names in firewall logs etc when they are internal IP's that should not reverse lookup.

cgarvey

Ah, ok.. the reverse lookup is bad alright. Well it is if your DNS server is used publically.

.cg