[155996] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Regarding smaller prefix for hijack protection
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Aftab Siddiqui)
Tue Sep 4 01:30:28 2012
In-Reply-To: <CAJ0+aXYE+Fo7ybk7=BsDjZkW2VG8knwK9ozySQwicHsxmijb2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 10:29:57 +0500
From: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui@gmail.com>
To: Anurag Bhatia <me@anuragbhatia.com>
Cc: NANOG Mailing List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
The thing to acknowledge is that you've realized it otherwise if you follow
the CIDR report than you will find bunch of arrogant folks/SPs not willing
to understand the dilemma they are causing through de-aggregation.
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Anurag Bhatia <me@anuragbhatia.com> wrote:
> I didn't realized the routing table size problem with /24's. Stupid me.
>
>
>
> Thanks everyone for updates. Appreciate good answers.
>
>
