nanog mailing list archives
Re: .mil domain
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen () sprunk org>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 13:15:08 -0500
Thus spake "Randy Bush" <randy () psg com>
In recent times, a lot of .mil have thrown up a whole bunch of null routes to large sections of international address space. Good luck getting them removedas this means they have a different definition of the internet than the one to which i, and i suspect others, are used, why should i and others accept their routes?
For the same reason anyone else accepts their routes -- because they want to be able to reach them. If they don't want to reach _you_, that's their choice. Nothing prohibits any part on the internet from blocking other parties they believe to be dangerous, whether it be due to warfare, spam, or other considerations. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Current thread:
- .mil domain Steve Waddington (May 30)
- Re: .mil domain Christopher L. Morrow (May 30)
- Re: .mil domain Stephen Sprunk (May 30)
- Re: .mil domain John Payne (May 30)
- Re: .mil domain Randy Bush (May 30)
- Re: .mil domain John Payne (May 30)
- Moving G and H off .MIL hosts (was Re: .mil domain) Sean Donelan (May 30)
- Re: .mil domain Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (May 30)
- Re: .mil domain Stephen Sprunk (May 30)
- Re: .mil domain Mike Tancsa (May 30)
- Re: .mil domain listuser (May 30)
- RE: .mil domain Mark Borchers (May 30)
- Re: .mil domain Mark T. Ganzer (May 30)
- Re: .mil domain Ryan Mooney (May 30)
- Re: .mil domain Randy Bush (May 30)
- Re: .mil domain Richard Irving (May 30)
- Message not available
- Re: Moving G and H off .MIL hosts (was Re: .mil domain) Kevin Day (May 30)
- Re: .mil domain Tony Rowley (May 30)
- Re: .mil domain Dan Hollis (May 30)