nanog mailing list archives
Re: 1.1.1.0/24
From: "Todd R. Stroup" <tstroup () fnsi net>
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 09:50:24 -0400 (EDT)
So what are you saying here Sean? We don't have a clue? 3/4 of the Internet service providers must not have a clue then. I don't belive I have ever read anywhere that 1/8 or anything smaller wasn't a valid route. Maybe you would like to show what you have in your BGP tables for 12/8? How about 9/8? How about 24/8? How about 32/8? How about 44/8? Do you want me to go on?? T..S On Wed, 13 May 1998, Sean Donelan wrote:
Looks like PSInet is demonstrating their complete and total lack of clue again.Who has less of a clue? A provider that announces a 1.1.1.0/24, or a provider that listens to junk like 1.1.1.0/24? It doesn't matter what junk is announced, *IF* you could get providers not to listen to it. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
Current thread:
- Re: 1.1.1.0/24, (continued)
- Re: 1.1.1.0/24 Michael Dillon (May 14)
- Re: 1.1.1.0/24 Dean Robb (May 14)
- Re: 1.1.1.0/24 Jeremy Porter (May 14)
- Re: 1.1.1.0/24 Michael Dillon (May 14)
- Re: 1.1.1.0/24 Dean Robb (May 14)
- Re: 1.1.1.0/24 Karl Denninger (May 14)
- Re: 1.1.1.0/24 Dean Robb (May 14)
- Re: 1.1.1.0/24 D'Arcy J.M. Cain (May 15)
- Re: 1.1.1.0/24 Dean Robb (May 16)
- Re: 1.1.1.0/24 Rich Sena (May 24)
- Message not available
- Re: 1.1.1.0/24 Jay R. Ashworth (May 14)