nanog mailing list archives
Re: 168.0.0.0/6
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 07:39:10 +0800
Isn't that something to notify AS3303 aka SWISSCOM about rather than NANOG?
perhaps because this path has been taken in the past and failed?
Especially since it does not look like it is spreading very widely.
hard to tell, isn't it. and hard to say the effect on the places to which it has spread. randy
Current thread:
- 168.0.0.0/6 Randy Bush (Feb 24)
- Re: 168.0.0.0/6 Daniel Karrenberg (Feb 24)
- Re: 168.0.0.0/6 Joe Provo (Feb 24)
- Re: 168.0.0.0/6 Randy Bush (Feb 24)
- Re: 168.0.0.0/6 Randy Bush (Feb 24)
- Re: 168.0.0.0/6 Hank Nussbacher (Feb 24)
- Re: 168.0.0.0/6 Randy Bush (Feb 24)
- Re: 168.0.0.0/6 Joe Provo (Feb 24)
- Re: 168.0.0.0/6 Daniel Karrenberg (Feb 24)
- Re: 168.0.0.0/6 Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 24)
- Re: 168.0.0.0/6 Andre Chapuis (Feb 24)
- Re: 168.0.0.0/6 Randy Bush (Feb 24)
- Re: 168.0.0.0/6 william(at)elan.net (Feb 24)
- RE: 168.0.0.0/6 Jeroen Massar (Feb 24)
- Re: 168.0.0.0/6 Randy Bush (Feb 24)