nanog mailing list archives
Re: more-specifics in class B space?
From: Brian Wallingford <brian () meganet net>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:41:31 -0500 (EST)
: > it appears there are providers out there that are abiding by the "ARIN : > guidelines" and thereby nuking routes within classical class b space. : [snip] : : It also appears that there are parties who received address delegations : within classical B space and are parceling chunks out, without any : delegation or registration. Without that administrativia, and no clear : customer-vendor relationship in an AS path, how does this behavior look : any different to address hijacking? It doesn't. At the very least, an rwhois server should be hosted by the current authority for the aggregate space, and adverts should be registered with the appropriate routing registry. IMHO, of course. -brian
Current thread:
- more-specifics in class B space? Tom Spindler (Mar 22)
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Jim Mercer (Mar 22)
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Randy Bush (Mar 22)
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Jim Mercer (Mar 22)
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Randy Bush (Mar 22)
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Randy Bush (Mar 22)
- Message not available
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Jim Mercer (Mar 22)
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Jim Mercer (Mar 22)
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Joe Provo - Network Architect (Mar 22)
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Brian Wallingford (Mar 22)
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Marc Slemko (Mar 24)
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Jeremy Porter (Mar 24)
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Deepak Jain (Mar 24)
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Larry Snyder (Mar 24)
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Jeremy Porter (Mar 25)
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Patrick Greenwell (Mar 24)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: more-specifics in class B space? Sean Donelan (Mar 23)