Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus

[Ulf Zimmermann <ulf () Alameda net>]

On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:06:54PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> Interesting you should bring this up.
>
> Because one party -- the originator -- marks an electronic communique as a
> confidential communication, does that really require the reciever to keep
> it confidential?

And I found that forward very interesting, as we did not get that 
info and its very valuable for us to know.

> Also, it's not hard to see this:
>
>
> route-server.exodus.net>sho ip bgp 38.0.0.0
> BGP routing table entry for 38.0.0.0/8, version 7807819
> Paths: (8 available, best #6)
>   Not advertised to any peer
>   1239 174, (aggregated by 174 38.1.3.39)
>     209.1.220.107 from 209.1.220.107 (209.1.220.107)
>       Origin IGP, localpref 1000, valid, internal, atomic-aggregate
>       Community: 1239:1110 3967:31337
>
> (anyone else notice the comedy of '31337'?)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>
> > At 09:27 PM 04/03/2000 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> >
> > > surprised not to see this mentioned on NANOG
> > >
> > > > Sent:  Friday, March 31, 2000
> > > > To:    Notify
> > > > Subject:       Exodus Customer Confidential Communication
> >
> > Gordon,
> >
> > Does the word "confidential" elude you?
> >
> > - paul

-- 
Regards, Ulf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ulf Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-769-2936
Alameda Networks, Inc. | http://www.Alameda.net  | Fax#: 510-521-5073