nanog mailing list archives
RE: net.terrorism
From: "John Belcher" <jbelcher () xram com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:45:53 -0500
Sabri, did you not understand this...
Announcing a netblock doesn't promise that every address in that block exists or is reachable. A network that is blocked for AUP violations doesn't "exist", and usually returns the ICMP message "Unreachable -- Administratively Prohibited" specifically designed for such situations. Have you read "Router Requirements"?
It specifically states that a block can be announced but that does not guarantee that all hosts will be reachable. You buy transit from abovenet, the block in question goes against their AUP, live with it. And furthermore, how can you even begin to take part in this conversation if you haven't read all the relevant literature? I also strongly suggest you think twice before you accuse a company of "terrorism" in the future. -John Belcher
Current thread:
- Re: net.terrorism, (continued)
- Re: net.terrorism Adrian Chadd (Feb 24)
- Re: net.terrorism Joshua Goodall (Feb 24)
- Re: net.terrorism Adrian Chadd (Feb 24)
- Communities for blackholes (was: re: net.terrorism) Joshua Goodall (Feb 24)
- Re: net.terrorism John Payne (Feb 24)
- Re: net.terrorism Adrian Chadd (Feb 24)
- Re: net.terrorism John Fraizer (Feb 24)
- Re: net.terrorism John Payne (Feb 24)
- Re: net.terrorism Adrian Chadd (Feb 24)
- Re: net.terrorism bmanning (Feb 24)
- RE: net.terrorism John Belcher (Feb 24)
- RE: net.terrorism Sabri Berisha (Feb 24)
- RE: net.terrorism John Belcher (Feb 24)
- Re: net.terrorism Adrian Chadd (Feb 24)
- RE: net.terrorism John Belcher (Feb 24)
- Re: net.terrorism Alex Bligh (Feb 24)
- Re: net.terrorism Randy Bush (Feb 24)
- Re: net.terrorism John Fraizer (Feb 24)
- Re: net.terrorism Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 24)
- Re: net.terrorism Jeff Haas (Feb 24)