nanog mailing list archives
Re: Regarding smaller prefix for hijack protection
From: Aftab Siddiqui <aftab.siddiqui () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 10:29:57 +0500
The thing to acknowledge is that you've realized it otherwise if you follow the CIDR report than you will find bunch of arrogant folks/SPs not willing to understand the dilemma they are causing through de-aggregation. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Anurag Bhatia <me () anuragbhatia com> wrote:
I didn't realized the routing table size problem with /24's. Stupid me. Thanks everyone for updates. Appreciate good answers.
Current thread:
- Re: Regarding smaller prefix for hijack protection Anurag Bhatia (Sep 03)
- Re: Regarding smaller prefix for hijack protection Aftab Siddiqui (Sep 03)
- Re: Regarding smaller prefix for hijack protection Richard Barnes (Sep 04)
- Re: Regarding smaller prefix for hijack protection Aftab Siddiqui (Sep 03)