nanog mailing list archives
RE: The Cidr Report
From: Geoff Huston <cidr-report () potaroo net>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:35:15 +1100
Interestingly enough what Covad appears to be saying is: If we had a way to announce two things 1 - here are the advertisements for covering aggregates for Covad AND2 - do not believe any more specifics for these address blocks, as they are NOT part of Covad's routing policy for these prefixes
then we would not be seeing this unfortunate case of unauthorized route leakage being resolved in a way that seems to have unfortunate bgp implications in terms of more specifics appearing.
So its an interesting question. How could Covad achieve a routing policy announcement of the form as stated in 2 above?
regards, Geoff
Current thread:
- Re: The Cidr Report, (continued)
- Re: The Cidr Report Austin Schutz (Nov 12)
- Re: The Cidr Report Daniel Roesen (Nov 12)
- Re: The Cidr Report Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 12)
- Re: The Cidr Report Simon Leinen (Nov 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report Geoff Huston (Nov 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report Hank Nussbacher (Nov 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report Geoff Huston (Nov 13)
- RE: The Cidr Report Randy Bush (Nov 12)
- RE: The Cidr Report Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 12)
- Message not available
- RE: The Cidr Report Geoff Huston (Nov 13)
- RE: The Cidr Report Randy Bush (Nov 13)
- Re: The Cidr Report joshua sahala (Nov 13)