[27970] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Rubenstein)
Mon Apr 3 22:06:29 2000
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 22:06:54 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
From: Alex Rubenstein <alex@nac.net>
To: Paul Ferguson <ferguson@cisco.com>
Cc: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20000403214713.00a82e20@lint.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.05.10004032204200.2104-100000@shakalaka>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Interesting you should bring this up.
Because one party -- the originator -- marks an electronic communique as a
confidential communication, does that really require the reciever to keep
it confidential?
Also, it's not hard to see this:
route-server.exodus.net>sho ip bgp 38.0.0.0
BGP routing table entry for 38.0.0.0/8, version 7807819
Paths: (8 available, best #6)
Not advertised to any peer
1239 174, (aggregated by 174 38.1.3.39)
209.1.220.107 from 209.1.220.107 (209.1.220.107)
Origin IGP, localpref 1000, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate
Community: 1239:1110 3967:31337
(anyone else notice the comedy of '31337'?)
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
> At 09:27 PM 04/03/2000 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> >surprised not to see this mentioned on NANOG
> >
> > >Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000
> > >To: Notify
> > >Subject: Exodus Customer Confidential Communication
> > >
>
> Gordon,
>
> Does the word "confidential" elude you?
>
> - paul
>
>
>
