nanog mailing list archives
Re: multi-homing fixes
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 18:07:04 +0800
I agree that there is no 'right' to have a route in someone else's router. Different providers, different policies etc. etc. However, if I choose to filter on allocation boundaries but advertise prefixes to peers that I myself would filter based on my own policy is that considered hypocritical? Bad form? Acceptable?
normal business. you're doing that for which folk PAY you. randy
Current thread:
- RE: multi-homing fixes, (continued)
- RE: multi-homing fixes Patrick Greenwell (Aug 28)
- RE: multi-homing fixes David Schwartz (Aug 28)
- RE: multi-homing fixes David R. Conrad (Aug 28)
- RE: multi-homing fixes David Schwartz (Aug 28)
- RE: multi-homing fixes David R. Conrad (Aug 28)
- Re: multi-homing fixes hardie (Aug 28)
- Re: multi-homing fixes bmanning (Aug 28)
- RE: multi-homing fixes Dmitri Krioukov (Aug 28)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 29)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Craig Pierantozzi (Aug 27)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Randy Bush (Aug 28)
- RE: multi-homing fixes Rafi Sadowsky (Aug 27)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Majdi S. Abbas (Aug 27)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Patrick Greenwell (Aug 27)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Majdi S. Abbas (Aug 28)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Randy Bush (Aug 28)
- RE: multi-homing fixes David Schwartz (Aug 27)
- RE: multi-homing fixes John Fraizer (Aug 27)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Majdi S. Abbas (Aug 27)