nanog mailing list archives
Re: 165.138.0.0
From: Sean Donelan <SEAN () SDG DRA COM>
Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 16:35:57 -0500
So is your rant about Sprint's filtering a macro by now? Or are you hoping that sheer repetition will somehow "fix" what you perceive to be an evil conspiracy?
Never attribute to duplicity what can be explained by stupidity. I'm perfectly willing to take Sprint at its corporate word. But if so, the same reasoning why sprint filters non-customer routes would apply to other ISPs filtering sprint customer routes. If sprint doesn't want to change its policy, its up to the sprint NOC to assist its customers to meet identical terms and conditions "Addresses not meeting the addressing filters, must either qualify for a larger chunk fo non-provider-assigned address space or get aggregatable address space from their immediate provider(s) and renumber their hosts into it." Renumbering is easy, everyone has to do it, even Sprint customers. Unless you are advocating that Sprint be treated to special conditions. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
Current thread:
- 165.138.0.0 Shawn David Solomon (May 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- 165.138.0.0 Aaron Branham (May 28)
- Re: 165.138.0.0 Sean Donelan (May 28)
- RE: 165.138.0.0 Aaron Branham (May 28)
- Re: 165.138.0.0 Sean M. Doran (May 28)
- Re: 165.138.0.0 Aaron Branham (May 28)
- Re: 165.138.0.0 Sean Donelan (May 28)
- RE: 165.138.0.0 Sean Donelan (May 28)
- Re: 165.138.0.0 Sean Donelan (May 28)