nanog mailing list archives
Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report]
From: Stephen Satchell <list () satchell net>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 11:54:34 -0800
On 11/30/2014 11:26 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 00:53:07 +0900, "Paul S." said:Do these people never check what exactly they end up originating outbound due to a config change, if that's really the case?You're new here, aren't you? :)
Thank you, I needed the laugh. Sometimes, getting the idea that checking one's work is necessary proves to be a hard lesson to teach to some of those young whippersnappers. I live and work in Reno NV, so I put the lesson in terms they can understand: "A triple check beats a double-cross." This is sufficiently annoying to people that they do indeed check their work...so they don't have to listen to me spout this cliche when things get screwed up.
Current thread:
- BGP Update Report cidr-report (Nov 07)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- BGP Update Report cidr-report (Nov 14)
- BGP Update Report cidr-report (Nov 21)
- BGP Update Report cidr-report (Nov 28)
- Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Simon Leinen (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Pierfrancesco Caci (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Paul S. (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Stephen Satchell (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Joe Provo (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Jay Ashworth (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Jason Bothe (Nov 30)
- Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Simon Leinen (Nov 30)
- Re: Low-numbered ASes being hijacked? [Re: BGP Update Report] Andree Toonk (Nov 30)