nanog mailing list archives
Re: YouTube IP Hijacking
From: Andrew D Kirch <trelane () trelane net>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:04:32 -0500
Paul Ferguson wrote:
I'm still convinced that the NANOG community -- perhaps in collaboration with RIPE and APNIC, et al -- should work to craft ISP "best current practices" in these areas, since ISPs don't seem to heed IETF documents, except when it serves their own business & operational practices. - ferg [1] http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/grow-charter.html
HELL NO(1)! Lets instead wait until the entire thing caves in, we run out of IPv4 space, and the governments have to step in and fix it for us. That's a solution! Andrew (1) This would be a vote of support for what Paul is saying.
Current thread:
- Re: YouTube IP Hijacking, (continued)
- Re: YouTube IP Hijacking Hank Nussbacher (Feb 25)
- BGP prefix filtering, how exactly? [Re: YouTube IP Hijacking] Pekka Savola (Feb 25)
- Re: BGP prefix filtering, how exactly? [Re: YouTube IP Hijacking] Danny McPherson (Feb 25)
- Re: BGP prefix filtering, how exactly? [Re: YouTube IP Hijacking] Pekka Savola (Feb 25)
- RE: BGP prefix filtering, how exactly? [Re: YouTube IP Hijacking] Randy Epstein (Feb 25)
- Re: BGP prefix filtering, how exactly? [Re: YouTube IP Hijacking] Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 25)
- RE: BGP prefix filtering, how exactly? [Re: YouTube IP Hijacking] Randy Epstein (Feb 25)
- BGP prefix filtering, how exactly? [Re: YouTube IP Hijacking] Pekka Savola (Feb 25)
- Re: YouTube IP Hijacking Hank Nussbacher (Feb 25)
- Re: BGP prefix filtering, how exactly? [Re: YouTube IP Hijacking] Arnd Vehling (Feb 26)
- Re: YouTube IP Hijacking Andrew D Kirch (Feb 26)