Re: This (new to me) ip thingy
- Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 11:59:21 +0300
- From: Reco <recoverym4n@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: This (new to me) ip thingy
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 04:36:12AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > >Frankly I'm not surprised that it failed to resolve 184.108.40.206.
> > > > Nobody sane would add a DNS record for this anyway.
> > >
> > > I think thats from avahi, is definitely is not anything I have
> > > configured.
> > Multicasts are not anything that *anyone* should configure.
> > The whole idea of them is that your L2 network segment configures by
> > itself.
> In that class A?
Classful networks are obsolete. See RFC 4632.
> Not even my isp has anything there.
Mutlicasts are limited to a *local* network segment. Unless a black
magic called IGMP proxy is involved.
> Its not a pingable address from here as I believe dd-wrt would stop it, nor does whois have a clue.
Of course it's not pingable.
The whole point of 220.127.116.11/4 network is that there is no host that has
such addresses assigned, yet UDP packets should come to any host in a
*local* (in L2 sense) network segment. Assuming that said host wants to
listen such multicast address.
Also, RFC 1112.
> NSA back door? Damnifiknow.
Nope. There's no point in such backdoor as multicasts are not routable.
> Traceroute gets zero response too.
It should. Multicasts don't use ICMP.