|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: "Matthew D. Lammers" <lammers@zeus.netset.com> To: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 18:05:15 -0500 (EST) Cc: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <m0xkczk-0007zWC@rip.psg.com> from "Randy Bush" at Dec 23, 97 02:40:00 pm The issue from our side has been fixed...I have word that "default" has been killed off. Also, noteworthy, that since we weren't getting these routes via BGP, filters didn't do much. Thanks! -Matt. Randy Bush wrote a while back: < < > and 192.0.0.0/24 < > or 128.0.0.0/24 < > or 191.255.255.0/24 < > < > these prefixes (and delegation points) are valid or potentially valid < > in the routing system < < and someday, with enough marketing thrust, pigs could fly. with as many < large isps filering these prefixes as there seem to be, and for good < historic reason, my advice would be to bet on the pigs. rosenantes is < getting nackered. < < and once again, what the heck is a 'delegation point' in bgp/routing? < rfc/document reference, please? < < randy < < -- Matthew D. Lammers -- NetSet Internet Solutions, Inc. http://www.netset.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |