nanog mailing list archives
block request on dalph () hush com (was Re: ISPs who de-aggregate intentionally?)
From: "John M. Brown" <john () chagresventures com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:46:54 -0700
this is an abuse of anonymous addresses and an abuse on this list. since the person being mocked didn't even reply to this thread, there is certainly NO need for this twit to reply. List Admin, please drop this person. zero content here. even the spam thread floods have more content than dalph () hush com thank you On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 04:50:37PM -0700, dalph () hush com wrote:
As part of the process of making the latest BGP draft an IETF standard, the IDR working group is in the process of reviewing how the current draft reflects deployed code. As part of this effort, if anyone is aware of ISPs who intentionally de-aggregate routes and could contact me to share some of the reasoning and their methodologies behind this, I would greatly appreciate it.It's great for traffic engineering. We have two different upstreams in two different cirites, and use it to avoid traffic on our core. We wanted to offer static IP dialups for roaming users, but had troubles with /32 prefixes being filtered by the big players. -Dalph Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com
Current thread:
- ISPs who de-aggregate intentionally? Jeffrey Haas (Sep 10)
- Re: ISPs who de-aggregate intentionally? Jeffrey Haas (Sep 10)
- Followup on de-aggregation (was Re: ISPs who de-aggregate intentionally?) Jeffrey Haas (Sep 13)
- RE: ISPs who de-aggregate intentionally? Phil Rosenthal (Sep 10)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: ISPs who de-aggregate intentionally? dalph (Sep 10)
- block request on dalph () hush com (was Re: ISPs who de-aggregate intentionally?) John M. Brown (Sep 12)
- Re: ISPs who de-aggregate intentionally? Jeffrey Haas (Sep 10)