nanog mailing list archives
RE: [NANOG] RE: rfc 1918?
From: "Mark Radabaugh" <mark () amplex net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:06:26 -0500
Would routing them to Null0 not be more optimal? Pi
Hum... Now there is a good idea! Thanks, Mark
Current thread:
- Re: rfc 1918?, (continued)
- Re: rfc 1918? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? John Hawkinson (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? John Hawkinson (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Eric A. Hall (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- RE: rfc 1918? Mark Radabaugh (Feb 24)
- RE: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: [NANOG] RE: rfc 1918? Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- RE: [NANOG] RE: rfc 1918? Mark Radabaugh (Feb 24)
- duh (Re: [NANOG] Re: RE: rfc 1918?) Pim van Riezen (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)
- RE: rfc 1918? Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Ariel Biener (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Stephen J. Wilcox (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Andrew Brown (Feb 24)
- Re: rfc 1918? Greg A. Woods (Feb 24)