news:#M$qyeQyJHA.4412@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

> In an attempt to learn a little more about Windows networking, I
> looked at my routing table with the ROUTE PRINT command.  I
> understand most of what's in the routing table, but not why this
> particular route is there:
>
> 173.66.223.94  255.255.255.255  192.168.1.1  192.168.1.101   20
>
> whois reports that 173.66.223.94 belongs to Verizon Internet
> Services, but I don't use Verizon as my ISP. I can't see that this
> is dangerous because if this static route wasn't here, packets
> directed to this IP address should simply use the default route,
> which has the same gateway and interface.  But maybe I'm missing
> something. Why would there be a static route set to some Verizon
> IP?

> Pete <Noentry@unknownhost> wrote in
> news:#M$qyeQyJHA.4412@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
>
>> In an attempt to learn a little more about Windows networking, I
>> looked at my routing table with the ROUTE PRINT command.  I
>> understand most of what's in the routing table, but not why this
>> particular route is there:
>>
>> 173.66.223.94  255.255.255.255  192.168.1.1  192.168.1.101   20
>>
>> whois reports that 173.66.223.94 belongs to Verizon Internet
>> Services, but I don't use Verizon as my ISP. I can't see that this
>> is dangerous because if this static route wasn't here, packets
>> directed to this IP address should simply use the default route,
>> which has the same gateway and interface.  But maybe I'm missing
>> something. Why would there be a static route set to some Verizon
>> IP?
>
> No idea.  Perhaps an old installation or malware added a persistent
> entry.  You can always try deleting it with the "route delete"
> command.  As you've observed, the default route should catch it.
>
>> Another slightly odd entry is:
>>
>> 224.0.0.0  240.0.0.0  192.168.1.101  192.168.1.101   20
>>
>> I understand that 224.0.0.0 is the multicast address, but in all
>> of the MSKB examples I've seen, the mask for 224.0.0.0 has been
>> 224.0.0.0 (i.e., the 3 high order bits).  I don't suppose there is
>> much significance in setting the next bit in this routing table
>> entry, but I wondered why it was done in my table.
>>
>
> According to:
>   <http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses/>
> The multicast addresses are in the range
> 224.0.0.0 through 239.255.255.255.
>
> This is represented by 224.0.0.0 mask 240.0.0.0 (224.0.0.0/4)
>
> 224.0.0.0 mask 224.0.0.0 (224.0.0.0/3) would represent the range
> 224.0.0.0 thru 255.255.225.225 and would be incorrect.
>
> HTH,
>   John