nanog mailing list archives
Re: /24s run amuck
From: Patrick W.Gilmore <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:13:36 -0500
On Jan 13, 2004, at 4:04 PM, Vadim Antonov wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Michael Hallgren wrote:On Jan 13, 2004, at 6:33 AM, Michael Hallgren wrote: Unfortunately, I've seen Peering Policies which require things like "Must announce a minimum of 5,000 prefixes". :(Wonderful... mhEasy to fix by changing to "covering N million IP addresses" - but, then,that becomes an address space conservation issue.
Yeah, that makes sense 'cause the utility of my network is directly related to the number of IPs in it.
Er, um, uh.... Maybe not. -- TTFN, patrick
Current thread:
- /24s run amuck Richard A Steenbergen (Jan 10)
- Re: /24s run amuck Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 13)
- RE: /24s run amuck Michael Hallgren (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Patrick W . Gilmore (Jan 13)
- RE: /24s run amuck Michael Hallgren (Jan 13)
- RE: /24s run amuck Vadim Antonov (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Patrick W . Gilmore (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck John Palmer (Jan 13)
- RE: /24s run amuck Michael Hallgren (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Daniel Golding (Jan 14)
- Re: /24s run amuck Patrick W . Gilmore (Jan 13)
- Re: /24s run amuck Richard A Steenbergen (Jan 13)
- Message not available
- Re: router design (was Re: /24s run amuck) Richard A Steenbergen (Jan 13)
- Re: router design (was Re: /24s run amuck) Rafi Sadowsky (Jan 17)