X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C86F41.EA5B866A@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:43:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: Lookup of 192.167.11.1
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:43:47 -0700
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0856E524@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20080214113935.23de5a01@ripper.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Lookup of 192.167.11.1
Thread-Index: AchvQVQxCXGZwItdRJixGcxN/srvmAAAIdCg
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E28F61A@onstor-exch02.onstor.net> <20080214113935.23de5a01@ripper.onstor.net>
From: "Eric Barrett" <eric.barrett@onstor.com>
To: "Andy Sharp" <andy.sharp@onstor.com>

It would get forced onto the schedule, then passively-aggressively
ignored.  In fact, I believe it already has been once, in 1.3.


-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Sharp=20
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:40 AM
To: Eric Barrett
Subject: Re: Lookup of 192.167.11.1

It will if someone forces it onto the schedule ~:^)  Caeli?

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:31:55 -0800 "Eric Barrett"
<eric.barrett@onstor.com> wrote:

> I would too.  I bitched about this 3 years ago.  Is it realistically
> going to happen in system W?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Sharp
> To: Eric Barrett
> Sent: Thu Feb 14 11:17:29 2008
> Subject: Re: Lookup of 192.167.11.1
>=20
> Funny, I would prefer that we fix the bug, not the symptom.
>=20
> I didn't hear any complaint of a problem from the customer, just that
> they are spending too much time looking at log messages.  I don't
> think anything bad is happening.  At least not from the evidence in
> this email.
>=20
>=20
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:52:02 -0800 "Eric Barrett"
> <eric.barrett@onstor.com> wrote:
>=20
> > Yagishitia-san,
> > =20
> > This message is due to our inappropriate use of 192.167.x.x, which
> > is outside of the RFC1918 private address spaces; it is, in fact,
> > owned by Naples University.  There is an old bug filed for this
> > design issue.  We use the address range internally (see our
> > Networking FAQ: http://wiki.onstor.net/wiki/Networking_FAQ).
> > =20
> > Given these messages, I am concerned that our system may actually be
> > trying to contact the University IP addresses.  I recommend filing a
> > bug requesting that we make sendmail ignore this address range.
> > =20
> > -Eric
> > =20
> > =20
> >=20
> > ________________________________
> >=20
> > From: Shun Yagishita=20
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:26 PM
> > To: dl-cstech
> > Subject: Lookup of 192.167.11.1
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > Hi
> >=20
> > My customer find the strange message in the maillog of
> > syslog(system_get _all).
> >=20
> > =20
> >=20
> > [part of maillog]
> >=20
> > Feb  8 04:00:21 bobcat3 sendmail[2355]: sm_gethostbyaddr: Lookup of
> > 192.168.10.104 returned bobcat3.sc1=20
> >=20
> > Feb  8 04:00:21 bobcat3 sendmail[2355]: sm_gethostbyaddr: Lookup of
> > 192.168.11.104 returned bobcat3.sc2
> >=20
> > Feb  8 04:00:21 bobcat3 sendmail[2355]: sm_gethostbyaddr: Lookup of
> > 192.167.11.1 returned dns.dma.unina.it=20
> >=20
> > Feb  8 04:00:22 bobcat3 sendmail[2355]: sm_gethostbyaddr: Lookup of
> > 192.167.4.1 returned VS_MGMT_1537
> >=20
> > =20
> >=20
> > I know "192.167.xxx.xxx" is our backplane
> > interface(192.167.vsID.vsIF). The customer has 11 vsvrs on their
> > cluster. Therefore,
> >=20
> > "192.167.11.1" should be displayed in maillog. My customer worry
> > that "192.167.11.1" is address of Naples Univ. Certainly, "Lookup of
> > 192.167.11.1 returned dns.dma.unina.it" is displayed.
> >=20
> > My customer ask me
> >=20
> > 1)       Is this inquiry to dns.dma.unina.it normal behavior?
> > **They don't think so.
> >=20
> > 2)       Is this done the hard court?
> >=20
> > 3)       Is this inquiry to dns.dma.unina.it every time?
> >=20
> > 4)       If dns.dma.unina.it down, is it no good for bobcat? Does it
> > cause trouble/error to bobcat?
> >=20
> > =20
> >=20
> > Thanks for your support.
> >=20
> > Shun
> >=20
> > =20
> >=20
