nanog mailing list archives
RE: Verio Peering Question
From: "Daniel Golding" <dgolding () sockeye com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:20:55 -0400
Ah, I'm afraid you are having a "senior moment" :). Sockeye devices do not steer inbound traffic by announcing small prefixes (or any prefixes). Competitors might (or might not), but we don't. Any routes advertised by our devices will always have the no-advertise or no-export well-known communities, as an additional safety measure to prevent route table pollution of any type. - Dan
-----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy () psg com] Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 1:21 AM To: Daniel Golding Cc: nanog () merit edu Subject: RE: Verio Peering Question my time flies. it's so comforting to have this discussion again so we don't have to think and can just reiterate the same old flamage. or maybe the net is now old enough that a significant proportion of our population has altzheimers. i will 'fess up to having 'senior moments' myself. the only new thing this time is that you now have a financial interest in routing table pollution. or am i mistaken that sockeye devices will be announcing small prefixes in an attempt to steer inbound traffic? randy
Current thread:
- RE: Verio Peering Question Daniel Golding (Oct 01)
- RE: Verio Peering Question Randy Bush (Oct 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Verio Peering Question Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 02)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Alex Bligh (Oct 02)
- Re: Verio Peering Question John A. Tamplin (Oct 02)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Alex Bligh (Oct 02)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Peter Galbavy (Oct 03)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 03)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Alex Bligh (Oct 02)
- Re: Verio Peering Question Marshall Eubanks (Oct 02)