nanog mailing list archives
BGP Attribute 92 ?
From: Atticus <grobe0ba () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 01:28:40 -0500
I'm not a network engineer, I merely subscribe to NANOG for interesting things that come across for me to learn about. That being said, I find it hard to take someone seriously who doesn't know how to write using proper English with words capatalized and punctuation, etc. I also saw noone taking the BGP attribute 92 stuff personally. Not to mention, anything that can disturb services uptime warrants at least a "Sorry guys, my bad." Without a forewarning, its not exactly a wild assumption to think it could have been an attack. I believe I remember a thread from a while back about the same attribute messing a lot of Cisco products up. I also don't see anyone else resorting to foul language to get their point across. Mayhaps I'm out of line for sending this, and just needed to vent. If I've offended anyone, I appologize. Sent from my Motorola Droid. On Dec 19, 2010 1:17 AM, "Randy Bush" <randy () psg com> wrote:
Current thread:
- BGP Attribute 92 ? Jared Mauch (Dec 16)
- Re: BGP Attribute 92 ? Rhys Rhaven (Dec 16)
- Re: BGP Attribute 92 ? Patrick Giagnocavo (Dec 16)
- Re: BGP Attribute 92 ? Randy Bush (Dec 16)
- Re: BGP Attribute 92 ? Patrick Giagnocavo (Dec 16)
- Re: BGP Attribute 92 ? Hank Nussbacher (Dec 18)
- Re: BGP Attribute 92 ? Randy Bush (Dec 18)
- Re: BGP Attribute 92 ? Randy Bush (Dec 16)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- BGP Attribute 92 ? Atticus (Dec 18)