[57772] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Re[2]: Low AS - Number
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Tue Apr 22 05:53:13 2003
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:52:37 +0100 (BST)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
To: Bruce Campbell <bruce.campbell@ripe.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304221134200.18812-100000@x22.ripe.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Bruce Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Alex Lambert wrote in reply to Subhi S Hashwa:
>
> > > More money than sense IMHO
> >
> > Reminds me of the shell providers that burn a /24 just to give their kids
> > more IRC vanity hosts.
>
> </hat=RIR>
> <hat=security>
>
> From the avoiding denial-of-service-attacks-that-impact-your-network
> point of view, putting your attractive-to-irritating-script-kiddies hosts
> on a separate network is a good thing, as you can always drop the specific
> network to save the performance of the rest of your network.
Yes, assuming you have some sort of PI /24 .. (if its just split from an
aggregate which is also routed as most seem to be you still get the traffic)
> If you happen to have a spare ASN around to do so with, even better.
ASN is irrelevant
Steve
>
> </hat>
>
> --==--
> Bruce.
>
> I do not speak for my employer.
>
>
